Scottish Parliament, 19 September 2019

261 contributions from 69 members. The official report.

St Andrew’s Day Events

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it will support St Andrew’s day events this year. (S5O-03557)

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Modern Scotland’s sense of national identity is proudly and passionately inclusive, diverse, compassionate, open and outward looking, as is emphasised by the Scottish Government’s we are Scotland campaign. Reflecting those values, the Scottish Government supports a range of initiatives on and around St Andrew’s day—including funding and supporting with partners the Scotland’s winter festivals events fund, which is administered by VisitScotland’s events directorate; BEMIS Scotland’s multicultural events programme; and Scotland’s participation in the global fair Saturday movement—in order to develop unique and distinctive events in Scotland that celebrate Scotland’s national identity in an inclusive manner and internationalist spirit.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I thank the minister for meeting, earlier this year, the cross-party group on St Andrew’s day, which I convene. Will he join me in commending the work of the All About Barrhead Ltd business improvement district, which is organising a festive fair that will take place in Barrhead on St Andrew’s day, which will highlight the ethos of fair Saturday and feature Scottish entertainment to celebrate St Andrew’s day as part of its “An awfy Scottish winter wonderland” event? Will he also join me in thanking the entire All About Barrhead team and, in particular, its manager, Andy Dunlop, for the excellent series of cultural events that it organises in the town throughout the year?

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I commend Tom Arthur and the whole cross-party group on St Andrew’s day, and I thank it for its engagement and its work.

I am also delighted to commend the work of All About Barrhead in planning for St Andrew’s day and what it does throughout the year. I thank the whole of that team.

To fully harness the significant potential that events can provide, partners across Scotland—local authorities and bodies such as community and business organisations, like All About Barrhead—are always encouraged to support and help to deliver their own activities as to join in the celebration of Scotland’s winter festivals, including St Andrew’s day.

I particularly thank and commend the team at All About Barrhead for, this year, engaging in the fair Saturday movement, which is a global movement that encourages communities to follow the consumerism of black Friday with a response through cultural activity on fair Saturday in support of social causes in a spirit of social empathy. This year, fair Saturday falls on St Andrew’s day, which is 30 November. I encourage as many communities across Scotland as possible to sign up to hosting a St Andrew’s day fair Saturday event by visiting standrews.fairsaturday.org, just as All About Barrhead has commendably done.

Sheriffhall Roundabout (Planned Improvements)

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made with the planned improvements to the Sheriffhall roundabout on the A720. (S5O-03558)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Scottish Government remains committed to undertaking improvements at the Sheriffhall roundabout, and Transport Scotland continues to progress the detailed development and assessment of the preferred option for the grade separation of the roundabout with a view to publishing draft orders later this year for formal comment.

As part of the essential preparatory work, Transport Scotland has undertaken ground investigation and environmental survey work, with the output informing the design of the scheme. In addition to that, extensive consultation with active travel stakeholders has been undertaken to ensure that the proposed improvements include suitable provision for all users, including cyclists.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The improvements have been promised for years, and it sometimes seems to commuters from my constituency that they have spent those years waiting in a queue at the

Sheriffhall roundabout. Will the minister please give us a date on which the work will start?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member will be aware that the improvements were committed to through the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal, which was agreed back in 2017. Progress has been made since then, and the development assessment work on the preferred option is being taken forward by Transport Scotland.

It is difficult to give a specific date for completion because, once the draft orders are issued, individuals are allowed to comment on the matter, which could trigger a local public inquiry, and that could have an impact on the timeframe. I assure the member that we are committed to taking the project forward. I wish to see the project moving as quickly as possible, but certain issues could have an impact on the finalised timescale for completion of the project.

Glasgow to East Kilbride Train Line (Improvement)

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its plans to improve the Glasgow to East Kilbride train line. (S5O-03559)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Following extra seating capacity being added in May, the first physical works that will inform proposals for future investment on the Glasgow to East Kilbride rail corridor will commence this month. Key site and geological investigations will be undertaken following tree and vegetation clearance by Network Rail along the 11-mile route corridor. The outcome will help to determine the right long-term solution for the route, which will focus on providing enhanced connectivity and better transport integration, with improved park-and-ride facilities. While delivering that, our aim is to move towards carbon-free journeys by progressing the option of efficient electrification.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary mentions improved park-and-ride facilities, which will be possible if we move the existing station at Hairmyres and get a new station. Can he give a timeline for when work might start—or, at least, when a decision will be taken—on that project?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am aware of the request for additional parking at Hairmyres station. That will be a principal focus of the project to enhance the Glasgow to East Kilbride line. I am aware that Network Rail and Transport Scotland have been working with South Lanarkshire Council and the Strathclyde partnership for transport on the issue, and they are looking to make progress on plans for enhanced provision at Hairmyres station. That will be part of the wider package of measures to improve services and connectivity on the line. We have provided Network Rail with almost £25 million to start that work and to finalise plans on what enhancements should take place in the next couple of years.

Transforming Towns

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the FSB Scotland report, “Transforming Towns: Delivering a Sustainable Future for Local Places”. (S5O-03560)

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

I have read, and I welcome, the report by the Federation of Small Businesses and its ideas and ambitions for our town centres. We are committed to supporting our town centres in becoming more diverse, successful and sustainable. Officials will meet the FSB in October, along with Scotland’s Towns Partnership, to discuss the report in more detail.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Despite what the minister has just outlined, according to a PWC report, more than five shops a week closed on Scotland’s high streets in the first six months of this year, with increasing business rates cited as one of the main reasons. More than 22,000 firms across Scotland are now subjected to the large business supplement, which is pushing many of them close to bankruptcy. When will the minister listen to leading organisations across Scotland and scrap the financially crippling large business supplement?

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

The member will know that the large business supplement is discussed at every budget, and I warmly welcome his engagement with this year’s budget. The FSB report also highlighted that more than half of FSB premises-based members pay no business rates, because we are committed to supporting the high street and ensuring that more than 100,000 small businesses are lifted out of paying rates altogether.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Does the minister agree that the FSB report on transforming towns provides a positive outlook for the Scottish economy? In particular, Kippen features on the report’s list of the top 20 towns in relation to the self-employment rate, and Stirling’s vacancy rate for non-domestic premises is well below the national average. Does that not demonstrate not only that the Stirling area is open for business but that, given the city region deal and the Scottish Government’s small business bonus scheme, Stirling is the place to do business?

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

I certainly agree that Stirling is one of the places to do business. I will not mention that some of the towns at the top of that list are in the Highlands—that is for another day. The Scottish Government understands that businesses face both challenges and huge opportunities in our evolving town centres. That is why we have provided the £50 million town centre fund to stimulate growth and investment and to back the businesses that are already doing well in our town centres. We will continue to back small businesses through our town centre action plan.

Mossmorran Ethylene Plant

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the operators of the ethylene plant at Mossmorran regarding the climate emergency and the need for a just transition. (S5O-03561)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I met representatives of ExxonMobil on 12 September 2019 to discuss its £140 million investment through 2019 and 2020, which will significantly improve the site’s efficiency, sustainability and environmental performance. The investment will support employment opportunities and, by implementing necessary infrastructure improvements, it will support the transition towards a net zero emissions economy in a way that is consistent with a just transition. Alongside reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we expect that the investment will help to address key issues identified by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the local community through lowering the frequency and impact of flaring, as well as associated issues such as noise pollution.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the £140 million investment announced by the operators this week. ExxonMobil was forced into that announcement by the regulatory and political pressure that has been exerted on the company over the past few years. Not a penny of that investment will enable us to meet the net zero climate target that is currently in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill. Will the Scottish Government back a green new deal and an industrial strategy for Fife that will help to plan investment in jobs in clean industries and technologies that have a genuine future?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Mr Ruskell raises important points. The programme for government that was announced in the past fortnight highlights a number of measures that will benefit the Fife economy through their support for industrial development and decarbonising the economy. I have had assurances that a considerable part of ExxonMobil’s investment will go towards improving the efficiency of the plant, including its energy efficiency; reducing greenhouse gas emissions from flaring; and improving the air quality in and around the area that is served by the plant. I believe that significant progress is being made there, but I note Mr Ruskell’s point that we in this Parliament are working together to deliver a net zero emissions economy, and I look forward to working with him on that.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Does the minister agree that ExxonMobil’s welcome announcement of £140 million investment with 850 jobs attached is an illustration of what determined communities can achieve through ensuring that their voices are heard? Will the minister confirm that robust scrutiny and monitoring of the plant will continue apace?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The investment is indeed very welcome. I pay tribute to the role that Annabelle Ewing and other campaigners have played in representing the concerns of the local community. The recent variations to the permits of both operators at Mossmorran will mean that there is a clear timetable and detailed plans for implementing improvements in flaring. Those actions should improve compliance and drive further investment to better protect local communities.

SEPA has a range of enforcement powers. I understand that the air quality monitoring equipment will remain in force and will be used throughout the process. My hope is that SEPA will not be required to use its enforcement powers and that ExxonMobil will move swiftly to implement the promised improvements.

Motorway Improvements (Compensation for Residents)

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how much compensation has been paid out to residents by the M8/M73/M74 motorway improvements project, including for noise pollution and house damage. (S5O-03562)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Approximately £10.75 million has been paid in compensation for the acquisition of land on the M8/M73/M74 motorway improvements project to date. In addition, a number of part 1 claims for the depreciation of value to property through the use of the works have been received. I confirm that those claims are under active consideration by the district valuer and that formal negotiations are expected to commence shortly.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The cabinet secretary will be acutely aware of the many questions that I have asked both in and outwith this chamber, on behalf of my constituents, about the M8/M73/M74 improvement programme. How soon will we get a fuller picture on whether my constituents will receive other compensation for their inconvenience? How will that information be communicated to them?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As I have confirmed, the part 1 claims have been received and are currently under active consideration by the district valuer. That includes consideration of the pre-scheme noise readings against the predicted noise levels, reviewing nearby sales information and undertaking a number of external inspections. I anticipate that the initial sift will be completed shortly, and that formal negotiations with Richard Lyle’s constituents or their appointed agents will commence directly thereafter.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

Much of the congestion that remains around the M8 is at Glasgow airport, and the improvement project has done very little to address that. The cabinet secretary might be aware of the efforts of the A737 action group, which is hoping to reduce some of the fatalities on that road, which feeds into the M8 at Glasgow airport. Is he aware of the campaign, and will he update us on what action the Government has taken to address the group’s concerns about the road?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am aware of the campaign and, as Jamie Greene will be aware, we are actively looking at a range of potential options to help to address congestion on the M8, particularly around the Glasgow airport area. One of the commitments that we set out in the programme for government is to look at how greater provision of public transport could help to reduce congestion in that area, including the possibility of repurposing parts of the motorway network around Glasgow to address some of the issues by reducing the number of cars on the M8.

We are committed to taking forward a range of measures to reduce congestion, including the repurposing of parts of the motorway for public transport.

Clyde and Hebrides Ferry Services (Vessel Reliability)

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that vessels operating on the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services are robust and reliable. (S5O-03563)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Under the terms of the CHFS2 contract, CalMac Ferries, as the operator, is required to keep the vessels seaworthy and in a good and efficient state of repair. That is done during the annual vessel overhaul of the CHFS fleet, which includes maintaining the classification of the vessels with the relevant classification society, as well as complying with all other regulations and requirements, statutory or otherwise.

In August 2018, the Scottish Government announced the creation of a £3.5 million resilience fund for the CalMac fleet during 2018-19, with a further £4 million being allocated in the 2019-20 budget.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The minister may be aware that a ferry summit took place on Islay on Monday, which was chaired by his colleague Mike Russell and attended by a wide variety of organisations and individuals, including me. All parties present agreed a set of proposals, which will shortly be published in a local paper,

The Ileach

. Will the minister commit to working with the public bodies that developed the proposals, so that Islay benefits as soon as possible from a ferry service with enhanced capacity?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I certainly welcome Donald Cameron’s positive remarks. Our officials participated in the summit and will be feeding back to me their thoughts on what can be taken forward. I am happy that the summit took place and that there was obviously a very constructive discussion around the improvements that are needed to meet the growing needs of the Islay economy, with the growth in distilling activity on the island.

We are conscious that there are also commercial plans for investment in ferry services to Islay, but I commit to working with Donald Cameron and others across the chamber to make sure that we get the right balance and supply of ferries to meet the needs of the community on Islay. Donald Cameron will be aware that we are taking forward our new ferries plan, which will go beyond 2022, and also updating the vessel replacement deployment plan to take on board the issues that he has raised.

Regulation of Legal Services (Review)

Tom Mason (Conservative, North East Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress of the Roberton review of the regulation of legal services. (S5O-03564)

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The Scottish Government formally responded to the Roberton review in June 2019. That response set out that we will seek to build consensus as to the way forward with regard to the future of the regulatory framework, prior to taking forward legislative change. We are currently working with the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates in order to build that consensus. In the programme for government, which was published on 3 September 2019, we committed to launch a consultation on reforming our legal services in early 2020.

Tom Mason (Conservative, North East Scotland)

A number of my constituents have raised serious concerns about existing practices in the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, particularly around transparency of investigations, the lack of oral representation during proceedings and the lack of available appeal mechanisms.

They believe that those things may be a breach of their human rights. What assurances can the minister give that the review will consider those important issues in a timely manner?

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I thank the member for raising those important issues. The complaints system is integral to the legal services system, but we recognise that the Law Society of Scotland and others sought a review to consider the wider aspects, rather than the complaints system alone. In my view, there should be a joined-up, forward-looking regulatory framework of legal services in Scotland and, as such, the system should be reformed through one piece of legislation rather than in a piecemeal fashion.

The Presiding Officer

Before we move to First Minister’s questions, I am sure that members would like to join me in welcoming to our gallery, from Ireland, the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil Éireann, Seán Ó Fearghaíl. [

Applause

.]

I also invite members to welcome His Excellency Edil Baisalov, Ambassador of the Kyrgyz Republic. [

Applause

.]

I have one further item before we turn to First Minister’s questions. I am sure that members will share my disappointment that significant details of the statement on getting it right for every child and the named person’s legislation have been leaked to the media in advance of this afternoon’s announcement. I understand that the Government is investigating the matter, but as members know, announcements on major policies should not enter the public domain before they are communicated to Parliament. I urge the Government to have regard to that guidance on announcements, which I expect it to adhere to.

Named Person Policy

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

1. I will try to artfully dance around the comment that you have just made, Presiding Officer.

The Scottish National Party’s named person policy, which would allow public authorities to share confidential information about children in Scotland without the child or young person or her parent being aware, has been utterly discredited. Last month, even the expert panel that was set up by the Scottish Government to try to make sense of the policy declared that it could not. Would not the First Minister agree that the panel was right?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Deputy First Minister will make a statement on the subject this afternoon. I will not pre-empt the detail of that statement, but I will make some general comments about the direction of travel. The Deputy First Minister’s statement will do three things in general terms. First, he will set out the Government’s response to the getting it right for every child—GIRFEC—practice development panel’s report, which will be published this afternoon. Secondly, he will set out the implications for the statutory underpinning of the named person policy. Thirdly, he will set out how we intend to support and seek to improve current GIRFEC practice, particularly in relation to the important issue of information sharing.

Let me be clear: young people across Scotland already benefit from a named point of contact, who is usually a health visitor or a promoted teacher, and we want that to continue. We want to ensure that councils and practitioners are well supported with the right guidance to help them to fulfil their roles effectively. That is the general thrust of what the Deputy First Minister will outline this afternoon. I hope that I have not breached any conventions in giving the Parliament that information. The Deputy First Minister will go into more detail and answer questions on that detail.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

If the statement had been made yesterday there would be no question of pre-empting anything and we would all be properly briefed to ask the First Minister about it today.

Let us recall what the expert panel said. It was asked by John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister, to write a code of practice that would ensure that the SNP’s named person policy would not break the law. We were reassured by Mr Swinney that that was entirely possible and it was suggested that anyone at all who doubted it was scaremongering. However, that panel of experts concluded that a code was

“not the right thing to do at this time”

and that it would

“not be desirable”.

Along with many others, we warned the SNP that that would be the outcome when the courts ruled the Government’s policy unlawful. Why did the Government not listen?

The First Minister

First, there was Tory opposition business in the Parliament yesterday afternoon. I suspect that, had we chosen to constrain it, Jackson Carlaw might have had something to say about that.

I remind everyone in the chamber that people who are watching at home will have it in mind that we are talking about issues of child protection. We all want to make sure that this country has in place systems that give children, particularly children who are living in vulnerable circumstances, the greatest protection that it is possible to give them. When we reflect, inside and outside of this chamber, on tragic incidents that affect children and which sometimes lead to the loss of a child’s life, one of the things that we often reflect on is the inability of different professionals to share information about the life and circumstances of that child. In good faith, we have been looking at how we improve those situations and make sure that all children have in place a system that has their best interests at heart.

We have listened to the views of experts. We established the practice development panel so that it could look in detail what is a complex issue. Obviously, one of the things that has changed while it has been doing its work is data protection law, which, as we all know, has undergone significant change. We will set out a considered response to that report this afternoon, including the implications for the statutory underpinning of the policy. Most important of all—I hope that all members will engage in this—we will also set out the further steps that we will take to make sure that those who work on the front line and do the job of protecting our children have the best guidance and policy framework to do that. I believe that that is one of the most important responsibilities that I, as First Minister, have; indeed, I believe that it is one of the most important responsibilities that this Parliament has to children across our country.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

I reassure the First Minister that Conservatives are always willing to revise our business in order to hold this Government to account.

Despite all that the First Minister now says, the one thing that the Government has not been doing is listening. Everybody—from teachers to social workers and, most crucially of all, parents—made their case against it, patiently and calmly. However, r

ather than listening, the response of ministers was to stick their fingers in their ears—they refused to budge. As a result, the ordinary taxpayer has been left with a staggering legal bill of £800,000 and teachers and parents have been left, as usual, in the dark.

Can the First Minister honestly say, looking back at the six long years since the policy was first announced, that she and her deputy stand by their handling of this fiasco?

The First Minister

Jackson Carlaw is able to hold this Government to account. He is rightly able to do that right now, and members will be able to do that when the Deputy First Minister gives a statement later this afternoon. Of course, nobody is able to hold the Tory Government in Westminster to account right now, because Parliament is suspended.

I remind Jackson Carlaw that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 was passed by this Parliament. All along, we have listened and responded to concerns. We also, as was expected of us, took the time to consider carefully the court judgment around information sharing. Indeed, that is why the panel was asked to do its work, and we have considered its views carefully. All of that leads to the statement that John Swinney will make this afternoon.

To come back to the central point, I absolutely accept that there have been differences of opinion on the policy, and I absolutely accept that Jackson Carlaw and any other member of this Parliament has every right to ask detailed and searching questions of the Government about this or any other policy. However, the tone of some of that is regrettable, because all of us want to do our level best to protect children, particularly vulnerable children, as much as possible. Everything that the Government does around that is done in good faith, and that will continue to be the case.

As well as setting out our response to the panel and the implications for the legislation, some of what is most important in what John Swinney will say is about the on-going work to make sure that practitioners who are trying to protect children are as well supported as possible. While, of course, not giving up on scrutinising the Government, I hope that all members will get behind that motivation and the objectives that we are seeking to fulfil.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

It is precisely because we want to do our best by vulnerable children that Scottish Conservatives have looked to a massive increase in the number of health visitors that we have—health visitors who would be concentrating on vulnerable children and not reporting on their parents.

More than three years ago, the Scottish Conservatives held a debate in this Parliament calling for a pause in the introduction of the named person policy—a pause that might have allowed some common sense to emerge from this Government and might have spared the Government and the taxpayer all the needless waste and cost that have followed. Instead, ministers hurled abuse at those of us who stood against the policy and they charged on regardless. They were warned countless times. We told them when the policy was introduced, we told them again when it was clear that it was not going to work, and we tell them again today: “For once, listen to teachers and parents. Dump the policy, and dump it now.”

The First Minister

I think that Jackson Carlaw’s tone is regrettable here, although the detail of this is extremely important.

This Government is increasing the number of health visitors. We are investing massively in perinatal mental health support and, for example, increasing mental health councillors in our schools. We are doing everything that we can do to protect vulnerable children from the impact of austerity and the cuts to welfare that are being imposed by Jackson Carlaw’s party. We are doing a range of things to make sure that we are supporting and protecting vulnerable children in every way that we can, and we will continue to do that.

These are complex issues. By their very nature, they are sensitive and often controversial issues, and there are rarely easy answers.

We will continue to take the right steps. We will continue to listen to experts and continue to set out plans that see this Government and, I hope, this Parliament fulfil their obligations to those who work on the front line with children who are at risk and, indeed, any child who is living in vulnerable circumstances. The Deputy First Minister will set out more detail on that when he stands up this afternoon.

Universities (Funding)

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. This morning, Audit Scotland has delivered a damning verdict on the state of universities’ finance under this Government’s watch: universities’ funding has been cut by more than 11 per cent over the past five years. As a result, more than half of our universities are now in deficit.

We used to be proud of the international reputation of our universities, but the European University Association calls Scottish higher education a “declining system under pressure” and Universities Scotland says that

“Government funding for universities is decreasing at a faster rate than the Scottish Government’s budget, suggesting university funding has been deprioritised.”

Can the First Minister explain why our universities have been “deprioritised” by her Government? (S5F-03543)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I do not know about Richard Leonard, but I am still proud of the international reputation of Scottish universities, and whenever I meet people from other countries or travel overseas, including yesterday in Germany, I meet people who are envious of the reputation, the record and the performance of Scottish universities.

On the Audit Scotland report that has been published today, I first point to the fact that, in this financial year, resources to universities—the higher education budget—have increased. The report also sets out that the total income in the sector has increased over the past few years. Of course, resources are tight.

I may be mistaken in this, but I do not recall Richard Leonard requesting additional money for universities in the recent budget. He will correct me if I am wrong.

Our universities are performing strongly. We have more top-200 universities per head of population than any country bar Switzerland. We are repeatedly setting records for students from Scotland going to university, and we see more people from the poorest backgrounds going to university. We have made massive progress in widening access.

I am sure that Richard Leonard knows this, because he will have read the Audit Scotland report in full. Although that report points to constraints in Scottish Government funding, some of the biggest funding challenges for universities that it sets out come from policies of the UK Government—pension costs, the Augar review of tuition fees and, of course, Brexit, which the report says threatens £211 million of funding to Scotland’s universities. I do not know whether Richard Leonard has anything to say about any of that.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I have not only read the report; I have also been listening to what people who work in the university sector say.

Just yesterday, the principal of Edinburgh Napier University warned members of the Scottish Parliament that there are

“severe funding challenges facing the sector”.

Universities Scotland says that our universities see

“this year’s budget from the Scottish Government as a pivotal point in their future.”

It is pivotal because, in its words, there has been

“a pattern of cuts to core budgets”.

There has been an 11 per cent cut in funding over five years, which amounts to more than £120 million less being invested in Scotland’s universities each year. That is a cut of £700 for each Scottish student every year.

Therefore, Scotland’s universities have a straightforward request. They want a 2 per cent real-terms increase in university teaching and research grants in next year’s Scottish budget. Will the First Minister meet that straightforward request and invest in our universities, starting with that 2 per cent, or will she continue to preside over their managed decline?

The First Minister

Well, well, well.

Our universities are performing extremely well, and that is down to the experts who work in them. We have more top-class universities than almost any other country in the world.

On widening access, figures that have come out just today show that the number of Universities and Colleges Admissions Service acceptances of university applicants from the 20 per cent most-deprived areas has gone up again. That is the fourth year in a row in which we have seen such an increase at this stage in the process.

Richard Leonard has made a specific request for a 2 per cent real-terms increase in funding for universities, so I will make my usual offer to him. As I keep reminding him, we allocate all the Scottish Government budget every year—it is fully allocated to our hospitals, to our schools and other local government services, and to our universities and colleges. If Richard Leonard wants a 2 per cent increase for universities, on top of the increases for which he has called for local government and everything else that we are responsible for, he should set out where in the Scottish budget he thinks we should make reductions. I have asked Richard Leonard to do that on countless occasions, but he has not once come forward with any ideas. Maybe today will be different. The door is open, as always.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

This is First Minister’s question time, and I am asking the First Minister questions about her record on higher education. I did not hear an answer to my question. If the First Minister will not promise to increase the funding to Scotland’s universities, will she promise at least to retain funds in Scotland’s universities? There is currently £90 million funding for tuition fees for European Union students. Our universities have asked for a simple promise: whatever happens regarding Brexit—I am determined that we should remain—the Scottish Government must promise to keep that £90 million invested in our universities. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Order.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

It is no wonder that universities are concerned about that £90 million, because on the First Minister’s watch we have witnessed funding decreasing and the system declining, all because her Government is deprioritising higher education. Will the First Minister end that failing policy and give our universities the guarantee that they are looking for? Is not that the very least that our universities and our students deserve?

The First Minister

As an aside, I note that we have possibly just heard Labour position on Brexit number 452. It is utterly bamboozling.

That rambling and incoherent series of questions demonstrates why Richard Leonard will never stand here answering questions to the First Minister, because he has zero credibility.

I point out to Richard Leonard that it is for Parliament to pass the budgets of this Government. As we keep on being reminded, ours is a minority Government, so we have to win support from other parties to get our budget through. If Richard Leonard wants us to spend more on any area, we have to spend less on another area—that is simple arithmetic. [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Order, please.

The First Minister

If Richard Leonard wants Labour to be taken seriously even as an Opposition party—not as a potential Government, because that is a long-lost cause—he has to make proposals. I am still waiting for him to bring forward anything that has any credibility. Until he does, Labour and Richard Leonard will have zero credibility among the electorate.

Tesco Metro Dundee (Lease)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Has the Government been made aware of Sports Direct’s sudden decision to terminate Tesco’s lease on its Dundee city centre Metro store? Its refusal to grant a short-term extension, to help Tesco support affected staff, will lead to the needless loss of 74 jobs. Has the Government been in contact with the companies concerned about that worrying situation?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I confirm that Jamie Hepburn, the business minister, spoke to Tesco yesterday about the company’s restructuring programme and the situation in Dundee. I understand that the Tesco Metro store is due to close on 2 November, which will, as Shona Robison said, result in 74 job losses due to Sports Direct, the landlord, terminating the lease, despite Tesco’s wish to continue trading. I ask Sports Direct to reconsider that.

The minister has offered assistance to Tesco about the situation, and, as always, our partnership action for continuing employment team stands ready to offer any support to staff facing redundancy. I am more than happy to ask Jamie Hepburn to discuss the matter further with Shona Robison, to make sure that the Government is doing all that it possibly can to help.

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park (Community Buyout)

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The First Minister will be aware that Flamingo Land Ltd’s planning application to build at Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park has been withdrawn. On that basis, will she advise whether the agreement with Scottish Enterprise is set aside? Will she support consideration of a community buyout?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am happy to get back to Jackie Baillie on the detail of the situation on Scottish Enterprise—I will ask the relevant minister to respond. We will always consider community buyout proposals. Of course, there is legislation on community empowerment and community right to buy, and those issues should always be discussed and considered carefully.

Northern Isles Ferries Contract

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Transport Scotland officials reportedly told those at a meeting in Shetland earlier this week that the Government can no longer guarantee that the new northern isles ferries contract will be in place by the end of October as previously promised. Will the First Minister confirm whether that is the case? Does she accept that further delay in letting the contract creates uncertainty and makes it impossible for many businesses in Orkney and Shetland to plan? Will she therefore ensure that the Government sticks to the October deadline?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I absolutely agree that it is very important to communities in Orkney and Shetland that they have certainty on the future contract. The Government is very keen to stick to that deadline, and I hope that we will set out the outcome of that process very soon.

As Liam McArthur is aware, we have been involved in legal challenges; the European Commission also has a role to play here. Therefore, certain processes have had to, and will have to, conclude before we can announce the next steps, but we want to be in a position to do that as soon as possible.

Independence Referendum

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

3. Five years ago, the First Minister and I were disappointed at the referendum result, but we were willing to work with those who promised to strengthen devolution and give the Scottish Parliament legal permanence. Instead, we have seen the United Kingdom lurch from crisis to crisis, we have seen the promises about protecting our place in Europe broken, we have seen the people of Scotland ignored—especially the 200,000, and counting, young voters who have never had a vote on their country’s future—and we have seen the UK Government treat devolution with utter contempt.

Another referendum is coming—we all know that. Does the First Minister think that we can trust that the head of state will once again be invited to interfere in a vote of the sovereign people?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Scotland’s future should always be a matter for the Scottish people. We know that support for independence is rising—demand for another independence referendum is rising.

If members do not want to take my word for that, all I can do is quote polling expert John Curtice, who said yesterday that

“also ... becoming more difficult to sustain is the argument that Scotland does not want a second independence referendum”.

Scotland has the right to choose its own future. The revelations—if I can call them that—from David Cameron today say more about him than about anybody else, and they demonstrate the panic that was in the hearts of the UK Government in the run-up to the independence referendum five years ago. Of course, that is nothing compared to the panic that is in the hearts of the unionist parties now about independence. They are progressively, one by one, making themselves look utterly ridiculous. They are reduced to trying to block or rig Scotland’s democratic right to choose and all because they know that they do not have the arguments against independence. They know that, when Scotland is given the right to choose, this time Scotland will choose to become an independent country.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The great many young people who have never had a vote on independence deserve to have a say. Tomorrow, many thousands of them will be taking to the streets across Scotland, demanding a response to the climate emergency. They know that Scotland cannot hold its head up high next year when the United Nations climate conference comes to Glasgow if we are still committed to maximum oil and gas extraction. They know that we need system change and a new economic direction—a genuine Scottish green new deal, not a Tory-lite economic plan written by people who still think that fossil fuels offer a secure future. Will the First Minister give tomorrow’s climate strikers the news that they want—that Scotland is ready to end its reliance on the lethal fossil fuel industry?

The First Minister

Just finally on independence—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Order, please.

The First Minister

Okay, Presiding Officer, I probably have to admit that this is not the final thing from me on independence; I may mention it again at some point in the future. However, I am struck by the barracking and heckling of the unionist parties in the chamber. I suspect that the louder they get, the more obvious it is how panicked they are. The big question for them is this: if they are so confident that people in Scotland do not want independence, why are they running so scared of an independence referendum?

On climate change, I say to Patrick Harvie that I had the pleasure of meeting the co-leader of the German Greens in Berlin, yesterday. He was very positive about the leadership role of the Scottish Government on climate change. I am absolutely happy to look young people—to whom I pay tribute for the action that they are taking—in the eye and say that Scotland is, and will continue to be, a leader in the transition to a net zero economy. Oil and gas are part of that transition but, as we have discussed many times in the past, we have to make that transition in a way that is, first, fair and just and, secondly, actually reduces carbon emissions rather than, perhaps in the short term, inadvertently increasing them. We will continue to show real leadership, not just in the UK or across Europe but globally, as we face up to and address the climate emergency.

National Testing (Five-year-olds)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

4. It is one year since Parliament voted to scrap national tests for five-year-olds. Since then, the Scottish Government has ordered tests for another 50,000 primary 1 pupils. Why has the First Minister allowed that in the face of the clear vote by Scotland’s Parliament?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

After that vote, the Deputy First Minister set out the action that we were taking to respond to it. An independent review of primary 1 assessments was carried out. That report was published. We set out our response to it—the changes that we were going to make—and that is the right and proper way to have proceeded. T

he assessments that we have in place in our schools are proportionate and right. They did not, of course, introduce assessment for the first time. All local authorities previously carried out assessments; some did so more than once a year. That is part of the process of making sure that we have information that allows us to determine whether our education system is delivering for the young people it serves, and we will continue to take that action because that is what we owe young people across the country.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

When Boris Johnson tramples over parliamentary democracy, the First Minister is outraged; when her education secretary does exactly the same, she pats him on the back. It is not just Parliament; teachers are being snubbed, too. In 400 pages of fresh criticism, teachers said that the tests were “a logistical nightmare”, caused a lot of stress to pupils and were “a waste of time”. That is on top of the criticism of the tests by the Government’s own advisers. Experts are against the tests, teachers have spoken out against the tests and Parliament voted against the tests. I know that John Swinney is not having a good day, but will the First Minister finally listen and tell him that he has to scrap the tests?

The First Minister

Parliament asked us to look at the evidence, which is what we did. We established the David Reedy review—

he conducted a comprehensive independent review, which involved speaking to many stakeholders and inviting written feedback from many. He spent considerable time in schools talking to teachers and children and he watched children undertake the assessments. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that David Reedy’s report provided anything other than a clear recommendation that primary 1 assessments should continue. Research has shown that a majority of primary 1 teachers believe that the children in their classes had a positive experience overall. The review reported that there was “scant evidence” of children becoming upset in the way that Willie Rennie and others had suggested.

We have taken action to ensure that changes that were required are being made. We will continue to take action to ensure that teachers have information about the performance of children so that they can help those who need extra help and make sure that children are performing at the levels that they should be. That is the right way to proceed, and we will continue with it.

Minimum Unit Pricing (Alcohol-related Deaths)

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The First Minister will be aware of new research showing that there has been a 21.5 per cent decrease in alcohol-related deaths in Glasgow since the introduction of minimum unit pricing. Does the First Minister agree with the British Liver Trust that Parliaments across these islands should get on with the day job and follow Scotland’s lead in the area?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, I strongly agree with the British Liver Trust. I am proud that the Parliament introduced minimum unit pricing. It is of course early days for that policy, and a full review is built into the legislation. However, all the early indications, including the statistic from Glasgow that Clare Adamson referred to, suggest that the policy is working and is saving lives and improving health for people across the country. I am proud of the policy, and I think that the Parliament should be proud of it. Although it is for others to make their decisions, I encourage other Governments and Parliaments across not just the rest of the UK but the world to look at the policy and consider implementing it in their countries.

Government Business (Use of Private or Party Email Address)

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Has the First Minister ever used a private or party email address to conduct Scottish Government business?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Government is completely subject to freedom of information legislation, and we would be covered by that. Rightly or wrongly, most of my conduct of Government business is on paper. I receive paper boxes, not email boxes, and I make handwritten notes. We will continue to respond to freedom of information requests about email correspondence on any particular issue.

Asda (Treatment of Female Workers)

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

The First Minister will be aware that MSPs and MPs from all parties have been expressing concern that Asda is threatening its predominantly female workforce with the sack if they do not accept extremely detrimental terms and conditions. Of course, Asda is not threatening its mainly male distribution workers in the same way and, this year, it announced a £92 million jump in profits, with bonuses all round for the mostly male senior members of the board of directors. Will the First Minister join me in asking Asda to get round the table with the GMB union and start treating women workers in its stores with some respect?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I share those concerns. I know that Asda has responded to some of the MSPs who have raised concerns, of whom I am one. There is an Asda store in Toryglen, in my constituency, and I have corresponded with Asda about the issue on behalf of constituents. I encourage Asda to continue to discuss the issues, to get around the table with staff and unions and to reach a positive resolution.

Climate Strike (College Bursaries)

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Tomorrow, thousands of young people in Scotland will join millions around the world in a historic climate strike, but many college students are concerned that, if they take part, they will lose their lifeline bursaries due to strict attendance requirements. The National Union of Students has not been able to get a straight answer from the Scottish Government or Colleges Scotland. Will the First Minister confirm today that any college student who takes part in tomorrow’s climate strike will not lose their bursary because of it?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am clear that students who are engaged in legitimate, peaceful protest should not lose their bursaries for doing so. I am more than happy to ask the Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science to correspond with Ross Greer about the detail of those assurances so that students know that they can take part in the protests without having those concerns.

European Union Nationals

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Members will be aware of new research showing that European Union citizens feel safer and more welcome in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Will the First Minister reiterate that her Government will always stand up for the rights of EU nationals living in Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We will do everything that we can to stand up for and protect the rights of EU nationals. Although I was reassured to read the research that was published earlier this week that suggests that EU nationals feel safer and more comfortable in Scotland than in other parts of the UK, I found it distressing that EU nationals in any part of the UK do not feel safe and comfortable.

I find it deeply distressing that EU nationals have had to put up with the uncertainty, stress and anxiety that they have suffered now for more than three years. It is utterly disgraceful and shameful—it is one of the most shameful aspects of the whole Brexit fiasco. I again call on the UK Government to do everything that it can to ensure that the anxiety for EU nationals stops. We will continue to send the clear-as-possible message that we welcome people to our country, we want them to be here and to stay and we value highly the contribution that they make.

Accountability (Government Policy)

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

When unemployment rates go down, it is because of Derek Mackay’s genius; when they rise, it is nowt to do with him. When hospital projects degenerate into shambles, it is the fault of health boards or the matrix—whatever on earth that is—but it is never the fault of Jeane Freeman or any of her predecessors as health secretary. Why is it that nobody in the Scottish Government ever accepts responsibility for the failure of their key policies?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Neil Findlay is talking nonsense. This week, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport announced a statutory public inquiry into the situation at the Royal hospital for children and young people in Edinburgh to look at the issues around accountability, technical specifications and construction standards. That is the right and responsible way for a Government to proceed. We thought that Labour members were calling for an inquiry, which makes it more than passing strange that they now seem to be objecting to it.

Drug Driving (Police Officer Numbers)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

5. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to alleviate the reported concerns regarding the number of police officers available to enforce a crackdown on drug driving. (S5F-03548)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Drug driving is completely unacceptable, which is why we have given Police Scotland new powers to keep our roads safe. Those new laws, together with our stringent drink-drive limit, will ensure that we have the United Kingdom’s most robust laws against impaired and unsafe driving.

The deployment of officers in preparation for implementation is a matter for the chief constable. Although all police officers can enforce legislation, including for road traffic offences, our understanding is that extensive training of relevant officers is under way to ensure effective implementation.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I welcome the Scottish Government’s zero-tolerance approach to drug driving. I have raised the issue in the chamber before.

The use of drug-detection kits by police officers at the roadside means that doctors will no longer be required to attend to take a sample. Will the First Minister outline the benefits that the new legislation will also bring to the national health service by freeing up doctors’ time?

The First Minister

I welcome Stuart McMillan’s long-standing interest in the issue. It is true that the new offence does not require evidence of impairment, which should free up time, as doctors will no longer need to consider impairment in police stations, though some doctors might still be involved in taking blood samples.

More generally, as I have said, together with our drink-driving limit, the new laws will ensure that we have the United Kingdom’s most robust laws against impaired and unsafe driving, which will contribute enormously to improving safety on our roads.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have a freedom of information response from Police Scotland from August, relating to the drug-driving legislation. It says:

“An online learning package, requiring completion by all operational officers of the rank of Inspector and below is in the process of compilation and will be available prior to the introduction”.

Is that online learning package now available, and will all officers have completed it by 21 October?

The First Minister

The training of officers is an operational matter for the chief constable. I have not seen the freedom of information response to which Liam Kerr refers. If he writes to me or to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, we will respond in more detail.

Those are operational matters.

Parliament sets the law, as it has done around drug driving, and we expect our chief constable—acting independently of Parliament and politicians—to make sure that the arrangements are in place. I have every faith in the chief constable and Police Scotland to ensure that that is the case.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Nine years ago, two young constituents died as a result of drug driving. Since then, I have been a road safety campaigner and I have consistently called for lower drug-driving limits and for drugalyser tests.

The First Minister will know that police in England and Wales have had drugalysers for four years and that their drug-driving conviction rates are significantly higher than the rate in Scotland. I welcome the new drug-driving limits, but why has it taken so long to implement them?

The First Minister

I recognise David Stewart’s interest in the issue. As he will appreciate, we first legislated to reduce the drink-drive limit, and we now have the most stringent drink-drive limit anywhere in the United Kingdom. That is also an important part of road safety.

The drug-driving limits have not been straightforward. A significant number of drug types are included, so careful consideration has been required. It is extremely positive that we have the new law in place. It is more stringent than laws anywhere else in the UK, and it will ensure that our roads are even safer than before.

David Stewart referred to tragic cases in his constituency. Many members will be aware of tragic cases of that nature. It is important that we do everything that we can to reduce their incidence. Combined, the actions that we have taken on drink driving and on drug driving will make our roads safer.

HIV (Action on Stigma)

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to tackle stigma surrounding HIV. (S5F-03558)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We are providing third sector funding of more than £2 million over three years to support innovative work in sexual health and blood-borne viruses. That includes funding to support Waverley Care to engage directly with people who are affected and to inform the development and delivery of targeted services that challenge stigma and promote prevention, testing and support.

A person who is diagnosed with HIV in Scotland today can expect to live a full life, with near-normal life expectancy. A person with sustained undetectable levels of HIV in their blood cannot transmit HIV to their sexual partners. We will continue to work to eradicate the stigma around the virus and to tackle the false myths and prejudices that, sadly, still surround it.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the First Minister join me in commending the former Welsh rugby captain Gareth Thomas on his journey to tackle stigma and prejudice around homophobia and his recent HIV diagnosis? In doing so, will she condemn his disgraceful treatment by elements of the press and public?

Given Mr Thomas’s experience, does the First Minister agree with HIV Scotland that, in the era of treatments such as PrEP, it is time for a public health campaign to end HIV stigma?

The First Minister

I join Brian Whittle in paying tribute to Gareth Thomas. His brave and emotional intervention this week will have done a great deal to address that stigma. Many people across the United Kingdom and further afield owe him a great deal of gratitude for that. We send him our best wishes.

I agree that much more needs to be done to tackle that stigma, and we all have a part to play in that. To be blunt, the media have a part to play in making sure that they are not disseminating the myths and false impressions of HIV that we often read about.

There is an argument for a campaign, particularly given the successful introduction of PrEP. We will continue to consider what work we can do to consign to the dustbin of history the horrible stigma that wrecks people’s lives. I am sure that we will all come together to do that.

12:44 Meeting suspended.

12:47 On resuming—

Social Security Scotland (First Anniversary)

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-18758, in the name of Shona Robison, on Social Security Scotland’s first anniversary. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes that it has been one year since Social Security Scotland was established, employing around 400 people with its headquarters in Dundee; commends the aim of the new agency to ensure that the service is based on dignity and respect; is encouraged by research published in June 2019, which it understands showed high satisfaction levels with the service provided by Social Security Scotland; considers that thousands of people are already benefiting from the increased financial support that has been delivered, including the Carer’s Allowance Supplement and the three elements of the Best Start Grant; believes that, by removing barriers to application and promoting the take-up of benefits, more low-income households have received much-needed support; welcomes that nearly £13 million has already been paid out through Best Start Grants, and welcomes that the agency will also deliver the new Scottish Child Payment, which it understands has been described as a “game-changer” by antipoverty campaigners.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

It is a privilege to bring this debate to Parliament. I thank my colleagues from across the parties who have supported the motion, giving us the opportunity to mark

Social Security Scotland’s first anniversary. I look forward to listening to their speeches and I hope that they will help to shape the future of social security in Scotland, as they helped to shape its beginning.

It was a proud moment for me when the Parliament passed the Social Security (Scotland) Bill—it was a proud moment for all of us who want to see a fairer, more respectful and more dignified Scotland. Great credit must go to all those who campaigned, many of them for many years, for control over our welfare policy. This is indeed a good start.

Across the United Kingdom, Scotland is showing the way forward, implementing a system that is based on the principle that social security is a fundamental human right. That principle has helped to shape the new body and its charter.

At the inception of Social Security Scotland, the people of Scotland were asked how the social security powers should be used. The message that came back was that the UK system is stressful, complicated, impersonal and even inhumane. We were determined to do things differently, to deliver benefits in a humane, personal and positive way and to see social security as a fundamental human right. We asked people from many different backgrounds to shape our principles and to share their experiences in order to help us build a system with them at the centre. From that, the charter was formed. The charter states that:

“social security is an investment in the people of Scotland ... social security is itself a human right and essential to the realisation of other human rights”

and

“respect for the dignity of individuals is to be at the heart of the Scottish social security system”.

Since its establishment, the agency has headquartered in Dundee—which of course makes me extremely happy—bringing more than 700 well-paid and highly valued jobs to Dundee in challenging economic times for the city. Those jobs are very welcome indeed. There are a further 750 jobs at its base in Glasgow, and a further 400 jobs are located in communities across Scotland, with people delivering face-to-face support to those who need it.

The agency’s first year has been a success. Audit Scotland’s recent review found that the Scottish Government has delivered on the commitments that it made for the first year: establishing a new agency that paid the first Scottish benefits; developing a social security charter; forming the Scottish Commission on Social Security; undertaking important groundwork to support the delivery of future benefits; embedding new ways of working; supporting the phased delivery of the benefits; and reflecting the principles of fairness, dignity and respect.

The report also says that many challenges are still to be faced as more powers come to Scotland. We do not doubt that those challenges will come, but we do not fear them. We see them as an opportunity to build a fairer future for all. We will build on what we have already done. Only yesterday, the Government announced the job start payment, which will support young people in a new job after a period of unemployment. That comes on top of the carers allowance supplement, which has helped more than 77,000 people so far by providing payments totalling £35 million in addition to the £157 million in carers allowance payments; the 9,700 families who are supported through best start grants; and the Scottish child payment, which will lift 30,000 Scottish children out of poverty and has been described as a “game changer” by anti-poverty campaigners.

We see what has been done; we see what can be done; and we see what needs to be done. Let us not forget the words of the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, who said:

“Even while devolved authorities in Scotland ... are frantically trying to devise ways to ‘mitigate’ ... the worst features of the Government’s benefits policy”,

the UK Government’s

“compassion for those who are suffering has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous approach”

to welfare. He went on to say that Scotland has used new powers to establish a “promising social security system”. We have made a promising start, but I know that we can do so much more.

I echo the calls of the Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People, Shirley-Anne Somerville, for all social security to be devolved to Scotland. I think that we have shown what we can do with those powers. What we want is to have the rest of the powers, so that we can support our people even more. We can create a system with the people of Scotland for the people of Scotland.

The UN letter declares that poverty is a political choice. Well, let us not choose poverty; let us choose to end poverty. Let us choose a system with the people of Scotland, for the people of Scotland.

I look forward to members’ speeches.

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

It gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank Shona Robison for bringing it to the chamber.

Marking the first anniversary of Social Security Scotland today is important, because it is not often in the chamber that we find such consensus around an issue, particularly in recent weeks. However, I think that we can all remember the infectious optimism that was evident in Holyrood that April afternoon when, unanimously, we passed the bill that enabled the creation of the agency. It was the culmination of the largest devolution settlement since this Parliament opened. The Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 presented the Parliament with the opportunity to create something dynamic, exciting and new.

As we have heard from Shona Robison—and as we will no doubt hear from the cabinet secretary later—David Wallace and the team at Social Security Scotland have done well to adapt to the challenges that they have been presented with practically and at a policy level. When I visited the agency’s offices in Dundee, as I have done on a couple of occasions, I was impressed by the enthusiasm with which the staff described their roles as well as their desire to build a compassionate system that is tailored to Scotland’s needs. I cannot fault them for the work that they have done and will carry on doing. Today, I add my thanks for all that they are doing to ensure the smooth delivery of the devolved benefits and the new ones that are being created.

That said, it would be foolish to rest on any laurels just yet. What has been accomplished already is an achievement, but a sense of perspective is required. The benefits that have been delivered by Social Security Scotland to date are just the tip of an iceberg and it is of some concern that we are already seeing delays.

In June, the cabinet secretary announced a whole series of postponements. I am glad that the funeral expense assistance that was promised in the summer has now arrived—albeit a month late—but the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Amber Rudd, warned of an impending cliff edge for disability benefits if the Scottish Government does not keep to its timetable. That could potentially affect thousands of Scots each month after the Department for Work and Pensions assessment contracts expire in 2021.

The importance of that date cannot be overstated. With no mechanisms in place to provide disability assessments, there is a serious risk that the Scottish Government could be forced to guess eligibility or, worse, that people may not receive the benefits that they are entitled to. The decision to bring forward the first instalments of the Scottish child payment threatens to disrupt those essential benefits. Although I welcome the Scottish Government’s intention with that policy, I hope that it takes the greatest care to ensure that its decision does not affect the disability benefits that we absolutely need to deliver.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I take on board Michelle Ballantyne’s attitude to disability benefits, but is that not hypocrisy from her, as her Government in London has attacked the disabled community? It is an absolute disgrace for Michelle Ballantyne to come here and state that.

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

It is very sad that George Adam has suggested that it is a disgrace to be concerned that people who are entitled to disability benefits may not get them if the deadlines are not met. I do not see that as hypocrisy in any way. George Adam is trying to make an inappropriate political attack.

There are real concerns, and there is a problem if he is not able to take that on board. I think that the cabinet secretary has taken that on board and that she is working very hard to ensure that there is no cliff edge and that we do not miss making the payments. It is legitimate to express concerns in the Parliament.

There are also a number of operational concerns that need to be addressed. At a Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee meeting earlier this month, members raised concerns about the programme in relation to budgeting, staffing and capacity. Again, those are legitimate concerns, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary is working hard to ensure that they are addressed. For example, the senior Scottish Government official involved in the new social security system was unable to provide the committee with even a ballpark figure on how the Scottish child payment will affect the programme’s long-term financial planning.

There was also confusion about whether the programme would stick to its own timetable. The relevant Scottish Government director told the committee:

“We are still working through the process to understand whether we can hold to the dates that the cabinet secretary shared”.—[

Official Report, Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee

, 5 September 2019; c 6.]

Given the concerns about disability payments, I sincerely hope that that work is completed swiftly and that we are not faced with an autumn statement from the cabinet secretary that details fresh delays to benefits that are already late. I would have thought that George Adam, too, would want to ensure that that work is done swiftly.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will give us some information about what is to happen with the ending of the lease of Dundee house. I understand that alternative premises are yet to be identified. Given that wave 2 benefits are coming, I hope that we will hear soon where the social security agency will be located. Obviously, it will be faced with quite a lot of work given that new benefits are coming and that it will have to move. I hope that we will hear some information about that.

I am absolutely behind the cabinet secretary in that I want her to get those things right. However, it is legitimate for us to raise concerns.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I thank Shona Robison for bringing the debate to the chamber. Given the scale of Social Security Scotland’s work, any time that we can devote to debating it is to be welcomed.

On Monday, I had the great pleasure of visiting Funeral Link, on Albert Street in Dundee. That is a recent initiative to address locally concerns about funeral poverty. It provides advice for people on ways in which they can cut down the costs of a funeral and still give their loved ones a dignified funeral and send-off. I ask the cabinet secretary to note that although the Scottish funeral payment started this week, that project, which is doing very good work, already faces funding challenges. I would be very grateful if she would look at that.

As Shona Robison said, Audit Scotland’s recent report was very helpful. It is important that the huge transfer of powers and public investment be monitored closely in order to ensure that it is done in the most efficient way. The Auditor General for Scotland highlighted some issues relating to the efficiency of information technology projects—I am sure that the cabinet secretary has studied the report—so it is very important that Parliament continue to scrutinise the new agency, how it is being set up and its efficiency in use of public funds.

As Shona Robison said, Social Security Scotland is headquartered in Dundee. I understand that of the 750 jobs that were promised, 250 people are already employed.

The new agency has, of course, had its successes. The new benefits that have been delivered, and the ones that are planned, will be a welcome boost to struggling families. Delivering them properly might allow us to finally start to cut into Scotland’s appalling and shameful poverty figures, which are particularly evident in Dundee.

However, like all agencies, Social Security Scotland has had its teething problems. Delivery of the Government’s new Scottish child payment has raised concerns due to fears that uptake of benefits will be impacted by use of an application-based process rather than an automatic payment process. That will require more form filling for applicants who have already been through the universal credit process, and it will create more work for agency staff, despite the then Minister for Social Security, Jeane Freeman, having demanded a simpler and more streamlined approach to benefits applications than the approach that is taken by the Westminster Government.

The decision to delay devolution of a host of benefits means that we have not yet been able to maximise the full potential of that process, and it has left thousands of Scots still dealing with the Department for Work and Pensions. I hope, therefore, that the cabinet secretary has delayed the process in the interests of an efficient and effective transfer of powers.

Like Michelle Ballantyne, I note the lack of a permanent base for the agency’s headquarters. It is important for the agency to have permanent headquarters. It is currently housed in Dundee City Council’s headquarters, which is called Dundee house, on an 18-month lease, but that lease will soon come to an end. When, at last week’s meeting of the Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee, I asked the chief executive when the lease will end, he said that he was not sure.

Dundee City Council is in the process of selling the building in which it has its headquarters to a Canadian insurance company—Canada Life UK, I believe—and will then lease it back. I do not know whether negotiations in that process are taking place but, as Michelle Ballantyne said, it is incumbent on the cabinet secretary to indicate when there will be a permanent base. Will the agency be moving out of Dundee house soon? There is a lot of empty office space in Dundee—whole buildings are empty, and although they might require a bit of refurbishment, they could certainly hold 750 staff. It is important for the future of the agency and for its ability to plan its service delivery that it gets clarity on where the headquarters will be.

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

As others have done, I thank Shona Robison for bringing the debate to Parliament. I also thank the team at Social Security Scotland: the public-facing side of the operation—the front line—and those behind the scenes who make a substantial effort in developing IT systems and the structures that underpin the entire Social Security Scotland network.

Another key “Thank you” must go to the people who have lived experience of the benefits system, who have been key and have been at the heart of developing, implementing and rolling out a variety of benefits, through experience panels and other extensive consultation. Lived experience is crucial, as are the key principles of how Social Security Scotland should conduct its business, as outlined in the social security charter, which people who have lived experience helped to create.

Social Security Scotland has sought—as it should—to build a strong and positive relationship with claimants and potential claimants on the bases of dignity, respect and trust. The new Scottish social security system is already, in its infancy, making a significant difference to the lives of many of my constituents.

The carers allowance supplement will put an extra £452 into the hands of 83,000 carers each and every year, going forward. Many of them will be constituents of mine. The best start grant includes a number of payments, from the pregnancy and baby payment to the early learning payment to the school-age payment, which have been rolled out incrementally over the past year. Some 42,000 payments have already been made to 10,000 low-income families, and £13 million has been paid out, to date. That will have benefited many of my constituents in Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn, and many others. It is a more generous contribution than the previous UK benefit: people in Scotland with two children receive £1,900, which is £1,400 than if they would receive if they stayed elsewhere in the UK. That is a substantial contribution.

As we have heard, this week saw the launch of the funeral assistance grant which is, on average, £1,300. There is no set amount. That will contribute to costs for people on low incomes at a distressing time when, as Jenny Marra outlined, they should not have to worry about money. The grant will make a significant contribution to their giving loved ones a fitting service. The grants are being promoted on social media, and I note that people can fill out paper applications or do online applications, and that there is a telephone helpline. The idea that application is not digital by default is an important principle.

I also very much welcome the expected job start payments. Up to £400 for young long-term unemployed people will be paid from around spring next year.

There is a lot to welcome, and it all builds up trust. I have not even mentioned the child payments. It is right that low-income households are seeing delivery of the child payments of £10 per week being accelerated, such that the first delivery for under-six-year-olds will be in 2021.

That brings us to disability assistance, which has been mentioned by a few members. The key thing for me—I have sought assurances on this from the First Minister at a Conveners’ Group meeting on the programme for government—is the commitment to make sure that those who will undergo a new personal independence payment assessment by the end of this session of Parliament will do so under the new Scottish disability assistance and not under the flawed, dreadful and punitive UK system. That reassurance has been consistently given. Of course, it is a challenge and we will have to scrutinise that, but let us do it in a supportive and constructive way for the better Scottish social security system that we all want.

My constituents would want me to finish by saying that this is money that they are entitled to and that there should be sufficient funds to deliver it. My goodness! How much more we could do if every social security benefit was devolved to the Scottish Parliament—not least the hideous universal credit, which causes my constituents so much misery.

I thank Shirley-Anne Somerville for her efforts, Shona Robison for bringing the debate to the chamber, and the team at Social Security Scotland for making a success of its first year. I wish it a happy birthday.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

I thank Shona Robison for the opportunity to debate this issue. The transfer of responsibility over some areas of social security to the Scottish Parliament is a major milestone on Scotland’s devolution journey. It gives us the opportunity to reclaim the idea that when we provide a good, reliable income for the most vulnerable people in society, everyone benefits—and we need that idea more than ever.

We have a UK system that continues to treat some of the people who need its help in the most heartless way possible, despite years of being called out by academics, organisations representing people who need support, and now even by the United Nations. However dedicated and compassionate many of the public servants who run the social security system are, it is a system that often appears to be tone deaf to the needs of our most vulnerable citizens.

Many members across the chamber will have experience that my office does, ever more regularly, of having to help people who are totally ground down by a system that simply does not appear to care what it puts people though. That is only the people who ask for help; we know that some are so totally bewildered and exhausted by the complexity of the system that they give up. Others drop out of the system altogether, and that affects take-up. We know that there are many millions of pounds that are unclaimed and, as Bob Doris said, that money is an entitlement.

I am grateful that we have this opportunity to debate the agency’s work so far. One of the most important tasks that the agency has is to build a new culture around social security, by sweeping away that culture of suspicion of people who ask for help, and instead encouraging and empowering them to apply for what they are entitled to. When people do apply, they should get help from a system that understands the challenges that people face in applying for and getting support, and a system that takes away so many of the barriers that have been put in place by the DWP.

Bob Doris highlighted the challenges that the digital-by-default model has. He made it clear that we must have in place different mechanisms for people to get in touch in order to get the help that they need. However, such things can be much easier said than done. Social Security Scotland will need to undo decades of denigration of the very idea of social security and of the people who need its help.

Staffing the new system with people who have lived experience of social security is absolutely a good first step, and I would be very interested to hear from the cabinet secretary on that point in particular.

The motion is rightly very positive about the promise of Social Security Scotland and the progress that it has made so far, but there will always be room to improve. Although the number of complaints about best start grants is low compared with the number of applications, I note that the research that is referred to in the motion shows that the majority of complaints that have been made about best start grants were upheld.

Although I accept that the Scottish child payment could well be a huge boost to some of our poorest families, it is means tested and will face the challenge of take-up that almost all means-tested payments face in terms of ensuring that people are aware of their entitlement and are encouraged and supported to apply.

Dignity and respect are rightly at the heart of the work of the new agency, but we cannot have dignity and respect if we simply do not have enough money. The Scottish Government is absolutely right to top up carers allowance, and it is great to see best start paying out more than double the sure start maternity grant, but we have to continue to monitor those increases and ask whether they are really good enough. The new rate for carers is still far below what they deserve, given the huge value of unpaid care, which stands at more than £10 billion a year.

The real challenge, of course, will come when disability assistance for working-age people begins. It will replace PIP, which, according to Sheffield Hallam University research that was commissioned by the Social Security Committee, has taken an average of £2,600 from disabled Scots. Banning unnecessary face-to-face assessments, which is a change in the law that was brought about by the Greens, will be an important part of that, as it should mean that applicants get a fairer assessment of their needs.

The Greens wish Social Security Scotland a happy first birthday and applaud the excellent work that has been done so far by the agency and its staff.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I, too, thank Shona Robison for securing the debate. I was happy to support the motion and I wish Social Security Scotland a happy birthday.

The first few years of the agency will be very important, as they will set the groundwork for going forward.

It is very important that we understand the role of the agency and the roles that other parties have to play in relation to it. When the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 became law, there was cross-party support for the idea that people who make applications will be entitled to independent advice and assistance throughout the process. Clearly, the agency can help, but I am concerned about some of the rumours that I am hearing, such as that the agency thinks that providing advice and assistance will be its role, not the role of a third party. I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary could confirm that, from the date of application, through the whole process, an individual will be entitled to independent advice and that it will not be the role of the agency to provide it.

George Adam’s intervention was disappointing, because we, as a Parliament, have to scrutinise what the new agency is doing and will do. The agency has done a lot of good work. We acknowledge that and say well done, but if we, as parliamentarians, are not going to scrutinise things that go wrong or raise difficult questions—

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

No, I am sorry, I do not have time.

If we did not carry out that scrutiny, that would be disappointing. Audit Scotland raised some issues, so we need to make sure that we are going in the right direction.

Like Alison Johnstone, I think it is important that those with lived experience and other minorities work for the new agency. However, the figures that I have seen show that we are below the percentage that the new agency set as its target. I hope that the Scottish Government will encourage the agency to keep going towards that aim. As a Parliament, we must ensure that those with lived experience are given the appropriate opportunities.

The Audit Scotland report pointed out that, even in the agency’s first year, there has been a high level of contractors and temporary staff coming in and we do not have the number of people working for the new agency that was envisaged at this stage. We have to ensure that what is delivered is being delivered appropriately. Are the IT and cybersecurity absolutely right? I have been impressed when visiting the agency and was impressed by the Scottish Government presentations that Bob Doris and I attended and that suggest that those issues are on track. However, it is the role of the Scottish Parliament to ensure that they are delivered.

The best start grant is welcome, but in many ways it was one of the simpler benefits taken over by the new agency. Some questions have to be asked about why so many of those who were refused first time got the grant on appeal and what lessons we have learned from that. As we go forward with more complex benefits, we have to ensure that we get it right first time as often as possible.

We welcome the new agency, its principles and openness. However, as we often say in Parliament, actions speak louder than words. We need to see not only what actions took place in the past, but also those that will take place in the years ahead.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I am grateful to my colleague Shona Robison for lodging the motion for debate. It has been a good opportunity to mark the many positive things that Scotland’s new social security delivery agency has done in its first year.

Before Social Security Scotland was even established, many things were said about the delivery of our new system: it was going to be the single largest programme of work undertaken by any Scottish Government since devolution and the new agency would be making more payments in a week than the entire Scottish Government had previously made in a year. All those things remain just as true a year after the launch of our new agency as they were before. The challenge is no smaller and the level of complexity is still as high—indeed it is growing.

However, we have made good progress. In its first 12 months, Social Security Scotland, ably supported by colleagues from the wider social security directorate of the Scottish Government, has successfully launched the carers allowance supplement, the best start grant family of three separate cash payments, the best start foods scheme and, as recently as this week, the new funeral support payment. That is six benefits in 12 months. That is on top of the underlying work completed by the programme and the agency around the social security charter, for example, and the important groundwork for future benefits that is already in train.

We go on: the young carer grant will be launched in the autumn of 2019; with the co-operation of the UK Government, job start payments will be delivered by spring 2020; by next summer, we will deliver the first benefit in the Scottish disability benefit family; and, by the end of 2020, the Scottish child payment—a game-changer in the fight to end child poverty in Scotland—will begin. In early 2021, we will begin our new replacement for PIP.

All that is being done against the background of our continuing, overarching effort to deliver a person-centred system that is founded on the principles enshrined in the Social Security Act that was passed unanimously by the Parliament, reflects the commitments in our social security charter, and, as several members have pointed out, is co-designed by people with lived experience of the UK system. I take the opportunity to thank again everyone who has been involved in the experience panels and our working groups. They have played such a large and important part in what we have today. It is fundamental that, at the heart of our system, we have a belief that social security is a human right.

I come to a number of the points that members raised during the debate, beginning with Michelle Ballantyne. Let us start on a point of consensus: I acknowledge her welcome for the enthusiasm of the staff and their work, which she saw when she visited the agency’s headquarters. I am pleased that she had that impression; it is certainly my impression every single time that I go there. However, I gently warn her around the language that she used in relation to the joint ministerial working group and her very selective quotes from the previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Amber Rudd, including the reference to discussion of a “cliff edge” because DWP assessments will end on a particular date. As the minutes of that ministerial working group show, the meeting was entirely a conversation between two Governments that recognised the time limits that they were under to get a joint project—the devolution of social security to the Scottish Parliament—under way.

I had many disagreements with Amber Rudd on a number of issues around benefit strategy, particularly in relation to reserved benefits. However, the meeting to which that quote relates was exceptionally constructive. That is the way in which she and I worked together in her time as secretary of state, and I look forward to that same constructive approach with the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

People in the Scottish and UK Governments, and everybody who is involved in the process, absolutely recognise that there will be, as Audit Scotland said, a step change as we move towards wave 2. We absolutely recognise that step change, and we are well aware of the challenges that lie ahead. I am confident that the work that the Government and the agency are putting together will stand us in good stead.

I say, absolutely and clearly, that the Scottish child payment does not threaten disability payments. When Aileen Campbell made her statement in June, she announced changes in the timetable to certain disability payments in order to ensure that we could deliver the Scottish child payment and deliver the rest of the disability benefits, carers benefits and the case transfer—and so on—in a way that ensures that we are doing it as quickly as we can while never losing sight of that safe and secure transition. I hope that Michelle Ballantyne will accept that reassurance. I will, of course, update Parliament on the further work that we have been doing on the Scottish child payment in due course.

Turning to Jenny Marra’s contribution, I am afraid that I do not think that the constituency organisation that she mentioned sits in my portfolio remit, but in that of Aileen Campbell. I therefore invite her to write to my colleague to raise any concerns. I do not think that they will come to me personally, but I am sure that Ms Campbell will respond to Jenny Marra’s points in detail.

It is very important that we consider the range of options that we could have had for the Scottish child payment. The example of automation, and the benefits that it could have had, was given. Although automation undoubtedly offers benefits—that is why we considered it as part of the discussions around the Scottish child payment—it was determined that it was not the quickest way that we could deliver the payment, and it was important for us to move quickly. I refer Jenny Marra to the policy position that the Scottish Government put out around the Scottish child payment and to the statement that Aileen Campbell made in June.

I will move on to the discussion around the offices in Dundee, which I appreciate that some members—particularly Jenny Marra—mentioned. The Dundee house lease is an 18-month lease initially, with a six-month rolling lease beyond that. We are, of course, considering wider options and our permanent base. Due to commercial confidentiality, Jenny Marra will unfortunately get the same reply from me that I believe she did from David Wallace when he was at her committee last week. Although I cannot go into the detail of that, I hope that I can reassure her that we, and the agency, are doing everything that we can to move that on as quickly as possible.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

We can check the

Official Report

, but I believe that the chief executive said that it comes down not to commercial confidentiality, but to restrictions in the commercial property market in Dundee. I do not share that perception. A lot of office accommodation is available in the city. Some more clarity on that from the minister would be really welcome.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The point that I am trying to make is that I cannot go into the details of the work that we are doing around what offices we are looking at or the work to achieve a permanent office, due to commercial confidentiality. It would not be appropriate for me to go into the details of that, but I recognise Jenny Marra’s point about the importance of making a quick decision on that, if at all possible.

A number of other points were raised by members. I do not have time to go into them all in detail, but Alison Johnstone was quite right about the recruitment culture that is required. I am pleased that the number of staff within Social Security Scotland who have a disability or a long-term condition is the same as the proportion in the wider Scottish public. I hope that that again provides reassurance that we are moving forward with our recruitment in a very serious way to ensure that those with lived experience are part of the agency and that it reflects wider Scottish society.

In closing, I pay tribute to the more than 400 staff of Social Security Scotland who have, since the agency was established last year, put money into the pockets and bank accounts of over 91,000 people across Scotland—payments that, in a significant number of cases, they would not have got under predecessor schemes. All of that has been done with the support of the dedicated and hard-working staff in the social security programme, whose work has been critical in getting us to the point of having an agency with the systems to deliver it.

There is much that we can rightly be proud of in the Government, in the wider Scottish Parliament and, I hope, in Scotland about what we have done in our first year of having a social security agency. We will have lessons to learn and there is much still to be done, but I believe that we have set a very proud and firm foundation that shows that we can indeed build a social security system with dignity, fairness and respect at its heart.

13:27 Meeting suspended.

14:30 On resuming—

Communities and Local Government

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

The first item of business this afternoon is portfolio question time. I repeat my usual mantra: succinct questions, succinct answers. This is a test. Question 1 is from Anas Sarwar—I know that he will not fail me.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I start by apologising to members, because I will have to leave at 2.45. I have a pre-arranged meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport about a constituency matter. I informed the Presiding Officer in advance. [Interruption.] Was that me taking up time? I am sorry.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Sarwar, that does not count. Members, do not barrack him. [

Laughter

.]

First-time Buyers Pilot Scheme (Criteria)

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what the criteria will be for the allocation of funding for the pilot scheme for first-time buyers. (S5O-03549)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The new shared equity scheme will be open to all first-time buyers in Scotland by the end of the year. It will provide them with a deposit of up to £25,000. Buyers will be required to contribute a deposit of 5 per cent of the property value from their own funds.

The new scheme will be part of the range of support that we give to those looking to buy their own home, which includes our help to buy Scotland scheme and open market shared equity scheme. It will help buyers purchase a property that meets their needs in the area where they want to live.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the minister clarify whether the scheme will include existing stock or be limited to new stock? If it will not include existing stock, what is the rationale for that?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The scheme is for all stock—new and existing. As I said, it will provide first-time buyers with up to £25,000 towards the deposit for a property. It fits in well with the suite of schemes that we already have. It is a pilot, so we will of course analyse how it all works, but I think that it will be beneficial to first-time buyers and to the construction industry in Scotland.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Yesterday was Scottish housing day. How will the £150 million national pilot scheme build on the Government’s delivery of 86,000 affordable homes and its support of more than 32,000 households via home ownership schemes?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The pilot scheme will support at least 6,000 first-time buyers on to the property ladder, enabling them to buy a home that meets their needs in the area in which they want to live. It will complement our existing home ownership schemes, which have helped more than 32,000 households purchase their property since 2007.

We are working hard to increase the number of homes in Scotland, so that everyone has a good-quality home that they can afford and that meets their needs. We will spend more than £3.3 billion during this parliamentary session to deliver at least 50,000 affordable homes by March 2021, at least 35,000 of which will be for social rent.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

How will the pilot scheme be advertised? If somebody borrows up to the maximum of £25,000, how much will they have to repay when they sell their home?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

It is an equity-based scheme and, as with the other schemes, people will pay back the percentage of the sale based on the equity.

Officials are finalising the operational details of the first-time buyer scheme. A draft version of the administrative procedures was issued this week, alongside the legal procurement documents. That is all now in the public domain. The administrative procedures set out how the scheme will work in practice, as well as the criteria for applicants.

New Homes (Accessibility)

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to legislate to ensure that all new homes are fully accessible, including having downstairs sleeping and washing facilities. (S5O-03550)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

We want everyone in Scotland to have a home that is warm, affordable and meets their needs.

In the summer, we published our draft vision and principles for a shared vision for our homes and communities in 2040. That shows our ambition to have enough accessible and adaptable homes across Scotland that are suitable for older and disabled people. In the coming months, we will engage further on how to make that a reality.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Today, the British Red Cross published “Life beyond the ward”, a document that has recommendations to improve hospital discharge. One of the challenges is that some people are not able to return home because they do not have facilities downstairs. What learning will the Government

take forward from those sorts of documents, especially with regard to our ageing population?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

We always take cognisance of publications from third sector partners, which often have good experience of what folks face.

I have said previously in the chamber that 99 per cent of the homes that we are delivering in the affordable housing programme meet the housing for varying needs standards.

In answer to a question from Miles Briggs’s colleague, Jeremy Balfour, on 27 March, I said that we would look at the housing for varying needs standards, because they are “a bit old now”. We must ensure that the homes that we build are fit for purpose not only for today but for tomorrow. We will continue to look at all that. I urge all members to encourage all stakeholders and everyone in their communities take part in the consultation on housing to 2040, in which we can encapsulate their views.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

The Scottish Government set a target to build 50,000 new homes. In order to focus the minds of the housing sector on the desperate need for a wider range of accessible homes—including for the 17,000 wheelchair users in Scotland—is it time to set a target for 10 per cent of those homes to be accessible?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The right way to tackle difficulties in our communities is not necessarily for national Government to set an arbitrary target. In their housing need and demand assessments, local authorities must ensure that they capture all the folk who require specialist housing in their area and deliver those homes accordingly.

During the course of the housing programme, I have been clear that, although subsidy standards are set, we will be flexible with local authorities and housing associations that want to deliver wheelchair-accessible homes, specialist homes or homes with a greater number of bedrooms—we know that there is a need for those homes, too.

Some local authorities and housing associations have grasped that opportunity. We have seen more wheelchair-accessible and specialist homes being delivered in many places. I want other authorities to look at what the best are doing to capture the needs in their area and to ensure that they deliver for the needs of their people.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 3 was not lodged.

Homelessness Registration (Support for Councils)

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how it will support councils in upholding the changes to the regulations regarding homelessness registration applications and people having a local connection. (S5O-03552)

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

We will work closely with local authorities as we prepare the ministerial statement, which we are required to issue within 12 months of commencing the provisions in the Homelessness (Scotland) Act 2003. We will listen to their views and see what we can do together to assist their preparation. That will include amending current data collections to ensure that we can measure and, where appropriate, act on the changes. We will update the code of guidance on homelessness so that local authorities are able to access the information that they need.

Our homelessness and rough sleeping action group recommended changing the operation of local connection referrals. We all agree that we want people who face homelessness to be able to choose where they settle and to access the support that they need, wherever they find themselves in their homelessness emergency.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I appreciate the answers, but I want to get as many members in as possible, so please make the answers—and the questions—a little shorter.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I welcome the minister’s answer. We can all agree on the points that he has made.

There are concerns in Edinburgh, where the changes might bring a major increase in the number of

homelessness registration

applications. The City of Edinburgh Council’s five-year plan indicates a cost of £9.2 million for implementing the changes.

Will the Government provide additional funding to support the City of Edinburgh Council through the process?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

The Government has recently increased the amount of money for the implementation of rapid rehousing transition plans from the original £15 million to £24 million.

That money is about transition. It is about allowing local authorities to use that additional resource to bend the spend of their current resource to do what is right for the people in their communities. I have spoken to the City of Edinburgh Council this week, and I have spoken to other places about the changes and how we can help them to ensure that those changes are the right ones for them. My officials and I will continue to collaborate with local authorities on that.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Does the minister agree that, although the Scottish Government is working hard to tackle homelessness—including, most recently, through the £15 million homelessness prevention fund—it is a multifaceted issue and that, through its unnecessary austerity agenda, the Tory United Kingdom Government continues to exacerbate the problems around homelessness?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Yes. I agree with Mr MacGregor. By 2020-21, a total of £3.7 billion in annual UK Government welfare cuts will be felt here, in Scotland, with more people being at risk of homelessness through debt and rent arrears. The shambolic introduction of universal credit means that tenants on UC have arrears that are, on average, more than 2.5 times the arrears that tenants on housing benefit had, and they are more than twice as likely to be in debt as other tenants.

We have continually called on the UK Government to backtrack on those flawed policies, to change its mind and to do what is right for the most vulnerable people in our society. I hope that folk across the chamber will join us in continuing to campaign for those changes and for the UK Government to finally see sense on the issue.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Will the minister support further action to tackle the housing crisis in Edinburgh? Will he allow the council to cap the number of short-term lets in the city, and will he accelerate the funding that is available for new affordable housing, so that we can eradicate homelessness?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

We recently concluded our consultation on short-term lets, and we are working through the 1,000-plus responses in order to get whatever legislation is required right not only for Edinburgh but for other parts of the country.

During the current programme, Edinburgh has received £31 million more than the original resource planning assumptions in order that it can deliver more social and affordable housing in the city. I am pleased that Edinburgh has been able to utilise those resources well.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Questions 5 and 6 have been withdrawn.

Tackling Inequalities (Intergenerational Work)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it will support intergenerational work in communities that aims to tackle inequalities and improve life chances. (S5O-03555)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The Scottish Government values intergenerational work, and we have demonstrated that by providing funding of £70,000 this year to the national experts in the field, Generations Working Together. We believe that intergenerational projects break down barriers between generations, tackle negative attitudes and stereotyping and strengthen local communities.

Generations Working Together sits on the older people’s strategic action forum and our national implementation group for our strategy on social isolation and loneliness. Through that strategy and our “A Fairer Scotland for Older People” framework, which was published earlier this year, we will consider what more we can do to promote intergenerational practice.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

A community enterprise in my constituency has researched a model of community-led care, taking an intergenerational and community empowerment approach that views young people and older citizens as assets, not problems. However, the concept needs some investment. Can the cabinet secretary advise us about specific funding streams and opportunities to test that innovative approach to intergenerational work?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

That sounds like an incredibly interesting project. I do, of course, agree that local community groups are essential for cohesion and for bringing folk together. There are many examples across the country of great intergenerational work, some of which are managed by the third sector while others are managed by integration joint boards. If the member writes to me with the details of the group and the specifics of what it does in her constituency, we will certainly look into possible funding solutions and give her further information on that point.

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

Outside the Scottish Parliament this morning, Aberlour Child Care Trust launched its campaign, “A bad start shouldn’t mean a bad end.” Unfortunately, many of us were not able to attend the launch, as we had to be in committees.

Aberlour is calling for a commitment from the Scottish Government to create a transitional fund to support local authorities to deliver early intervention family support services. Will the Scottish Government commit to considering such a fund?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We will continue to work with Aberlour and others who point out where there might be a need for additional support. We will also ensure that what we do across Government creates a whole-life package of support across the life journeys of children and supports them at key transition points. If there is more that Aberlour wants to discuss, I am sure that Maree Todd will be happy to engage—I see her nodding—and so will I.

Scottish Borders Council (Meetings)

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

8. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met Scottish Borders Council. (S5O-03556)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Ministers and officials regularly meet representatives of all Scottish local authorities, including Scottish Borders Council, to discuss a wide range of issues as part of our commitment to working in partnership with local government to improve outcomes for the people of Scotland.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, but I do not think that she answered the question.

Recently, Nicola Sturgeon announced that Scottish schools will be rebuilt or refurbished in the first phase of the £1 billion investment programme, benefiting 50,000 pupils across Scotland. However, none of those schools is located in the Scottish Borders Council area. Rightly, parents were angered by that decision.

Will the Scottish Government give assurances that Scottish Borders Council will receive a fair share of the funding that is allocated to school investment in the future?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I understand that discussions are on-going and that work is being undertaken with Jedburgh academy. We continue to work with Scottish Borders Council on the strategic direction of the council’s learning estate and on which of the council’s upcoming projects might be suitable for Scottish Government support in future phases of the programme.

Getting it Right for Every Child (Practice Development Panel Report)

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

The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the getting it right for every child practice development panel’s report. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There is wide agreement across the chamber that we want to get it right for every child so that they can grow up loved, safe, respected and able to reach their full potential. However, too often, we have all heard of cases where children and families have not had access to the support that they need. The named person service was designed to help to address that and to ensure that every child in every part of Scotland would be able to get the support that they need, when they need it. That is a key characteristic of getting it right for every child, and I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to that policy direction today.

I believe that everyone in the chamber shares our aim of promoting the wellbeing of Scotland’s children, even if we sometimes disagree on how best to do that. Naturally, parents are the biggest influence on a child’s wellbeing, as caregiver, role model, teacher and guide. However, sometimes, a child or their family might need some additional help.

I have had the great privilege of meeting people across Scotland who are passionate about providing that help, and I have seen powerful examples of the difference that they make to children’s lives. I want to make sure that that support is available to all who need it. Legislation to support the named person service was intended to help to do that. The aim, as set out in the policy memorandum to the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill, has always been to have in place someone who can

“act as a clear point of contact for children, young people and their parents to go to, should they wish to seek support, information or advice. ”

That function has never really been controversial. Where there quite obviously has been significant controversy is around when and how information should be shared by and with a named person.

Legislating to support and safeguard something as individual as a child’s wellbeing has its challenges, and we believed that the Supreme Court judgment required us to make changes to legislation on information sharing. The result was the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill. However, since we introduced that bill in 2017, there have been significant changes to the data protection legal landscape, with, for example, the introduction of the general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. In addition, of course, the Parliament’s scrutiny through the Education and Skills Committee resulted in the pausing of consideration of the bill.

In order to chart a way through that complexity, I established a panel of experts to explore the development of a statutory code of practice for information sharing. There was a critical point in relation to its work. I charged it with ensuring that the code was, to quote its remit,

“workable, comprehensive and user-friendly for children and young people, parents and practitioners”.

I asked the panel to produce a code that everyone—not just lawyers who specialise in data protection—could understand and use, and I thank Professor Ian Welsh OBE and the panel members for taking on that complex task.

Today, I have published the panel’s report. The panel concluded that achieving all the aims that I set it in a single statutory code is simply not possible. In light of that, I have had to consider how best to proceed.

Foremost in my mind has been how to ensure that families can access the help that they need when they need it in a way that respects their rights and gives them confidence that personal information is handled correctly. In considering that, the panel’s work has proven invaluable. It reviewed the data protection legislation that came into force during 2018 and concluded that the world has moved on significantly since the bill was drafted. Now that we have a new statutory framework, including through the introduction of GDPR, the panel concluded that we should not introduce a statutory code of practice and that we can rely on the law as it currently stands, founded on the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR.

In practical terms, that means that we will not produce a binding legal code and that information sharing will take place only in line with the law as it currently stands. The panel has recommended that, instead of the code, we provide practical help, guidance and support to enable professionals, practitioners, children and families to understand their rights under the existing law. We accept the panel’s recommendations in full. That also reflects feedback from practitioners, who have loudly and clearly called for clarity on how and when information can be shared.

My officials will now work with stakeholders to develop a suite of products to support and promote good, proportionate and appropriate information-sharing practice within existing law. That will include further training and guidance for practitioners, updated getting it right for every child guidance and material to reassure the public about how the service operates.

The panel’s report sets out the details in full, but the four recommendations on additional investment, an update of the getting it right for every child policy statement, measures to support the transparency of information sharing and a refreshed suite of practice guidance are crucial.

From a parent’s point of view, that means that information about a child or young person will not be routinely shared without their or their family’s knowledge or engagement. From a practitioner’s perspective, it simply means that those operating the services must handle personal information in line with existing guidance and laws, such as those that are applicable to data protection, confidentiality and human rights.

In taking that approach, I hope and believe that we have resolved the information-sharing controversy at the heart of the named person approach in a way that protects the vitally important policy of getting it right for every child.

The law on information sharing will not now change. The way in which information is shared will be based on existing law, and we will provide help and support to make practitioners certain that they will get it right and to ensure that families know what can and cannot happen to their personal information. Consequently, I will write to the Presiding Officer to withdraw the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill.

That brings me to the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 and the statutory named person scheme. Part 4 of the act makes provision for every child and young person to have a named person. Part 5 introduced the requirement for a child’s plan when a child’s wellbeing requires the support of a targeted intervention. Those elements of the 2014 act are awaiting the passage of the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill before being brought into force.

However, the reality is that many community planning partnerships already operate elements of a named person service and a child’s plan. Those services are provided within their existing statutory functions, under existing legislation, and they have evolved over the past 10 years to provide early help, high-quality planning and the co-ordination of services. I want more families to benefit from those services.

I want to be absolutely clear: the services do not require wellbeing information about a child or young person to be routinely shared without their or their family’s knowledge or engagement. As I said earlier, the aim of supporting families when and where they need it has largely been uncontroversial.

Having addressed the information-sharing controversy, we must now ensure that the help and support that the named person service provides to children and families continue. That service is already making a massive difference in children’s lives. It should be recognised that, in the past five years—since we introduced the 2014 act—we have seen real advances in culture, systems and practice in services that support families. That progress has improved lives the length and breadth of the country and we must continue to build on it in order to increase confidence in the delivery of the getting it right for every child approach, including the named person service. I am wholly supportive of existing good practice continuing.

The child’s plan is also being used across children’s services, and it has been well received. Children and families already benefit from practitioners working closer together in a co-ordinated way to support children in all aspects of their wellbeing.

Our commitment to those policies and the practitioners who implement them is reaffirmed today. They are in place, they are effective and they change lives for the better, without the need for underpinning legislation. I therefore give notice of our intention to repeal parts 4 and 5 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. We will do so in due course, using a suitable legislative vehicle.

Today, we have taken an important step forward in providing families and practitioners with certainty about how information sharing can support wellbeing in a transparent way that respects everyone’s rights. We will now not underpin in law the mandatory named person scheme for every child. We will withdraw the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill and repeal the relevant legislation. Instead, existing voluntary schemes that provide a point of contact for support will continue, under current legal powers, when councils and health boards wish to provide them and parents wish to use them.

In that way, we will support our children and young people, so that they can thrive and rise to the challenges and opportunities that life brings. Only through continued investment in our children’s wellbeing will we achieve our vision of a prosperous country where everyone gets the chance to fulfil their potential and no one is left behind. That is why we continue to be fully committed to getting it right for every child.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow 20 minutes for questions, after which we must move on to the next item of business.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of the statement.

The Parliament knows only too well that I have held strong views on the named person policy from the very beginning, and I do not believe that any tears will be shed this afternoon by parents, teachers, health and social care professionals, campaigners or, of course, the public, who have persistently told the Scottish National Party that the policy is one of the most deeply unpopular, illiberal and unworkable ones of modern times.

Will the cabinet secretary now apologise to all those professionals on the front line who have had to endure endless bureaucracy and anxiety about where their legal responsibilities lie? Will he apologise to local authorities who have had to divert significant resources away from other spending priorities in order to retrain their officials and practitioners? Will he apologise to all the families across Scotland for the general upset that the policy has caused over the past five years?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

In all of this discussion, it is really important that we remember that the Government’s policy intention, at all times, has been to put in place measures that would support and enhance the wellbeing of children and young people in our society. I will not apologise for trying to find the best way to do that. In so doing, the Government has had significant support from and engagement with the self-same professionals and local authorities and families that Liz Smith talks about. What I hear from members of the public who come to see me—and those who have come to see me over the past 20 years as their member of this Parliament—is frustration at the lack of connection between public services in meeting the needs of individual families, and cries for help when people have needed those services the most. I will not apologise for trying to help those individuals. What I will do is put in place, as I do every day of the week, measures to support the enhancement of the wellbeing of children and young people in our society, and that is what I am determined to do in the future.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of the statement. When the cabinet secretary dropped his proposed education bill, I called it the mother of all ministerial climb-downs, but he has outdone himself today, losing two bills—one dropped and one repealed. This must be the mother and father of humiliating U-turns. The difference is that the education bill was a bad idea; the named person scheme was a good idea, supported by this Parliament, that has been destroyed by the incompetence of a succession of ministers, who lost control of the implementation, lost the support and confidence of practitioners and the public, lost the legal challenge in the Supreme Court and lost the argument in the Education and Skills Committee.

The cabinet secretary talks about the policy’s good intentions. Good intentions do not alone make for good government, and this has been very poor government indeed.

The cabinet secretary

would not apologise to Liz Smith. Labour members have tried to support the legislation, as have many professionals and organisations in the sector. Will the cabinet secretary at least apologise to them for the mess that he has made?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The crucial point is that the legislation that I have tried to enforce and take forward was supported in this Parliament by the SNP, the Labour Party, the Liberals and the Greens; in the final vote on the legislation, the Conservatives abstained. Parliament has supported the legislation comprehensively. Obviously, the legislation was challenged in the courts in Scotland before I became the education secretary and it succeeded in passing those challenges. An issue of concern was raised by the Supreme Court in relation to the provisions on information sharing and we have done our level best to try to protect the legislation that Parliament enacted.

That is the duty of the Government—to try to ensure that we do everything we can to implement the legislation that Parliament has passed and to make sure that that can be done effectively. I have sought every possible avenue to do that, through the introduction of successor legislation and by inviting Professor Ian Welsh and his colleagues to look carefully at how the issue could be resolved. They have found it impossible to find a way to provide a meaningful statutory code of practice, which was, in our view, the means to address the issues raised by the Supreme Court.

I cannot ignore the Supreme Court and I have never at any time sought to do so, but we and the panel have found it impossible to address the Supreme Court’s issues in a workable fashion. We have made every effort to do so. I have acknowledged and faced the reality of that difficulty today and I am committing the Government to make sure that we put in place all the support that we possibly can, in every respect, for the vulnerable children and young people in our society who need the help of public services.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I have no desire to stymie questions and answers, but I would like to get 11 members in, so I ask members to follow my mantra of short questions and succinct answers. I understand that this is a very important question session.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The Deputy First Minister has outlined that the Scottish Government will repeal sections 4 and 5 of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. Does he share my view, that the impetus around the named person service since the bill was introduced to Parliament has resulted in improvements across children’s services?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Yes—it has. We can see that from some of the assessments of the support that is available for children and young people, particularly the recent Nuffield Trust report, “International comparisons of health and wellbeing in early childhood”, which illustrated some significant improvements in the circumstances of children and young people in our country.

Other challenges will come their way, such as challenges from poverty—which is acute in Clare Adamson’s constituency of Motherwell and Wishaw—as a consequence of the changes to benefits regimes that are taking their course. The Government will remain relentlessly focused on supporting those vulnerable children and young people. Today’s statement and the pathway that I have set out will, I hope, assist in ensuring that that is the case for children and young people across Scotland.

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

For me, this debacle has been very personal, as I was the head of a children’s service and a member of my local authority’s GIRFEC implementation team. Therefore, for me, it is about asking the cabinet secretary to not only apologise but recognise that we had to put in a lot of extra work to make the scheme work on the ground. We told him back then that we could make it work without legislation and that it was about professional judgment.

I therefore want the cabinet secretary to commit to listen to those of us who are on the front line, and to recognise that it is bureaucracy that creates many of the gaps in the scheme, because social workers and children’s workers do not have enough time—instead, they are filling in paperwork.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There are elements of Michelle Ballantyne’s question that I agree with. I want to make sure that our professionals on the front line are able to take, and are confident about taking, the necessary steps to support the wellbeing of children and young people in our society. That work does not need to be drowned out by bureaucracy; it needs to be supported by good practice, good communication and good integration of services.

Many people in the professional community have contributed hugely to the development of the named person service and have developed much of the practice, which I applaud. I want to make sure that anyone who is observing my statement takes from it an encouragement to continue and enhance their practice. As I said to Clare Adamson a moment ago, I believe that the named person practice that we are seeing in place is actually benefiting the lives of children and young people.

Today, I have set out a route that empowers professionals to take that agenda forward and I look forward to supporting them in their endeavours.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s continued commitment to GIRFEC, which was described by the Nuffield Trust last year as leading the way in the UK.

Will the cabinet secretary expand on how the policy direction will shape the revised national guidance for child protection in Scotland that was announced in the programme for government?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The work that we are doing there will be about the importance of early intervention and prevention to support children and young people, as acknowledged in the Nuffield Trust report. The whole agenda is predicated on ensuring that active support is in place. One of the foundations of the expansion of early learning and childcare is to ensure that we have the earliest possible intervention to support children and young people.

On the question on child protection, we have in place a very well-ordered, clearly defined child protection approach. It is there to make sure that children who are at risk of harm are properly supported, and that issues are resolved on their behalf. The thinking that comes out of the early intervention work will be brought to the heart of the work that is taken forward on child protection as a consequence of the programme for government.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

When the Education and Skills Committee took evidence on it in the autumn of 2017, it became clear that the

Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill

ran the very real risk of either conflicting with data protection laws, or being rendered meaningless by them. The issues that were identified by the committee must have been identified by the Government’s advisers. Will the cabinet secretary say whether their advice contained those warnings, and when he received it?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Johnson’s question gets to the nub of the difficulty that the panel was trying to resolve. There is intense complexity in respect of interweaving pieces of legislation. The objective of the bill on information sharing was to try to chart a course through that complexity; that was the framework in which the Government intended to operate.

It became clear through the work of the panel that that could not be done in a way that would be accessible to children, young people and their families as well as to practitioners. I accept that conclusion. That is why I am here today and that is why the Government is not pursuing that bill.

We had hoped that the framework in the bill would create the architecture within which that work could be undertaken. The panel has told us that that cannot be done. I accept that conclusion, which is why we are taking the steps that we are taking today.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

The cabinet secretary’s announcement today completely vindicates the position that was taken by the Education and Skills Committee in 2017, which was that we should not proceed with his unsound bill. The unquestionably legitimate policy of having named persons has been devastated by the bungling of the Government. What does the Deputy First Minister have to say to people who are already acting as named persons across the country, who will face further anxiety and uncertainty as a result of today’s announcement?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I hope that those professionals will take from my statement the Government’s unreserved support for the work that they are undertaking. I do not accept Mr Greer’s comment that they have been in any way undermined by the issues that we have been wrestling with: they have been getting on

with the work of supporting children and young people in our communities in order to address the issues and difficulties that they face. I say first, to those professionals, a word of thanks for their efforts and their contribution, and, secondly, a word of encouragement to continue to develop the excellent practice that they have undertaken.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

The bill has wasted years of time and the good will of the people, including me, who are involved in delivery of the policy in the children’s sector. The cabinet secretary knows that he had the support of my party. However, we kept telling him where the faults lay and still he did nothing. What is the cost of the legal bills and workforce hours that have gone into that failed policy? What confidence can he offer hardworking colleagues in the voluntary and public sectors that their concerns will be better heeded in other areas of policy?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

There were several points to address in there. Mr Cole-Hamilton knows that the Government has faced legal costs for defence of the legislation in the outer and inner house of the Court of Session and in the Supreme Court. It is quite reasonable for the Government to commission legal costs to protect legislation that has been agreed by Parliament—and which was supported by Mr Cole-Hamilton and his colleagues. We have incurred relatively modest costs on the practice development panel—less than £10,000. The panel has spent a huge amount of time and effort on its work, but its members gave their time voluntarily.

Contrary to what Alex Cole-Hamilton said, practitioners—many of whom were involved in the practice development panel—have given of their time willingly, because they are hugely supportive of the policy’s direction of travel and want it to succeed. I encourage them to continue in those efforts. I hope that my statement today has given them confidence and clarity for the future.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I refer members to my entry in the register of interests as a registered social worker. I associate myself with the comments that have just been made by the Deputy First Minister.

Practitioners in social work and other services work tirelessly on a multi-agency basis and want—in fact, demand—confidence from members of the Scottish Parliament in what they are doing. I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s emphasis on that in his statement.

Can he expand on how the Government, local authority partners and other stakeholders can work together to encourage even more joined-up working across children’s services, in order to build on the progress that has been made in recent years and the good practice that exists out there?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

One of the principal ways to do that is by designing approaches that relentlessly focus on the circumstances of individual children. The more we can keep the interests of the child and children’s wellbeing at the heart of our interventions, the more we will encourage focused joint working among public bodies. That is the sensible and rational evidence-based approach that will enhance the life chances of children and young people in our society. I encourage professionals to follow that guidance.

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

My colleagues across the chamber have already outlined what a very great waste of time and money this fiasco has been from start to finish. Will the cabinet secretary give us his firm assurance that every public body that is involved will have in place up-to-date information on sharing guidance by the end of this year? If not, how long does he expect that that will take?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The clearest signal that I am giving to public bodies today is that they need to operate within the current legislative framework, particularly in relation to issues around data protection and in connection with human rights. That is not something new that has been announced today—that is the law of the land as it is today, and public bodies should be operating in that fashion.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I have been a strong believer in a named persons system as a good scheme for helping vulnerable families in my constituency who are seeking help to avoid being passed from pillar to post. Can the cabinet secretary give reassurance to vulnerable families in my constituency that they will be able to find help when they go to the public sector?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

That was the import of my statement. I want to make sure that the people in our society who need assistance are able to get it. The sentiment that John Mason expressed about encountering families who feel that they are being passed from pillar to post is an experience that I have had all too often in my parliamentary life. I want to address that, so I give him reassurance that that is the focus of the policy, and of the guidance and the advice that we will provide as a consequence of it. I am confident that local authority partners, health boards and other bodies are similarly focused on taking forward that agenda.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

Additional recommendation 4 of the GIRFEC practice development panel’s report states:

“There should be additional multi-year investment in multi-agency training.”

Will the cabinet secretary tell Parliament how much that investment will be, and when it will be in place?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Those issues will be part of the implementation approach that the Government takes. We will discuss that with our local authority and health board partners in the normal course of our activities, in order to ensure that we have in place the proper support that will enable the recommendations of the panel—which I accept in full—to be taken forward and implemented.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

I appreciate that the cabinet secretary has set out that we will not proceed with the Children and Young People (Information Sharing) (Scotland) Bill. Will he outline how the role of consent will be factored into information sharing, following that decision?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Practitioners must take a careful approach to handling consent. Consent lies at the heart of the matter, including the question of how practitioners evaluate whether members of the public are giving consent voluntarily in cases where they might feel obliged to give it. Practitioners must exercise great care in how they approach the question of consent. Good family engagement and good dialogue are central to making sure that the people who need services are able to access them, and that practitioners can make the appropriate judgments, in that context.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes questions on the statement. I thank the cabinet secretary and members, because everyone got to ask their question—as should be normal.

Pre-release Access to Economic Statistics (Committee Bill Proposal)

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-18727, in the name of Gordon Lindhurst, on a bill proposal on pre-release access to statistics. I call Gordon Lindhurst to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee.

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

I apologise for this debate being something of a repeat. Members will think of it, perhaps, as the

BBC Four of parliamentary debates. We were here last November, discussing the twin topics of data and economic performance, and it was clear at that point that the Scottish Government had not altered its position.

With respect to the Minister for Public Finance and Digital Economy, I note that her predecessors, Keith Brown and Derek Mackay, were nothing if not consistent. Whatever it was, they were against it—or, at least, such was their stance regarding changes to pre-release access. I hope that the minister will be more willing to engage with the committee and will consider why we have been pursuing the issue for almost two years now, although there have been times when I have wondered that, too. As the playwright said,

“Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”

Why, then, do we propose a bill addressing the topic? I will outline what we propose to do and why. First, I will address the “why”. Pre-release access, or PRA, is rather a niche topic and we did not envisage that it would occupy the time that it has occupied. What is PRA and why does it matter? It is the practice of making statistics available to ministers and their advisers prior to publication. The Office for National Statistics stopped doing that in July 2017, and the Bank of England followed suit.

In our economic data report, which was published in February 2018, we called for an end to PRA for four sets of statistics that are of national importance, including those on gross domestic product and “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland”. That was the majority view of the committee. The minority opinion, although more cautious, still sought a presumption against pre-release. I add that the recommendation was just one of the 29 that we set out in our report, the majority of which were accepted by the Scottish Government and others, including the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the ONS.

Why was our call for an end to PRA not agreed to? The chief statistician suggested that the issue had been overplayed. By some curious logic, it was right for the ONS to end PRA but, in our case, it was “not necessarily straightforward”. We pressed the Scottish Government on the matter in further correspondence and meetings, and the lengthy discourse can possibly be distilled into five words: ministerial benefit versus statistical integrity. I will elaborate on that a little, after which I will come to the matter of there being two views among committee members.

The standard argument for PRA is that it is preferable for ministers to be briefed in advance. Those who are in favour say that that allows ministers to make sensible and informed comments at the time of publication, so the practice has public merit. So far, so plausible. The counter view is that it puts ministers—whichever party is in power—in a privileged position and allows the figures to be framed in a particular way, or even to be spun.

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

I have a genuine question about the idea of first-mover advantage. How can PRA offer first-mover advantage if, at the same time as the Scottish Government gets access, so, too, do the Scotland Office and the Treasury?

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

The point is that the Scottish ministers get access before other politicians or commentators do.

It is said that PRA enables ministers to provide a positive slant before anyone else can respond, thereby risking the public’s trust in the veracity of official statistics. The majority view of the committee sides with that side of the argument, on statistical integrity. Some colleagues take a different view, and I shall let them speak for themselves, but I think that it is only fair to say that they, too, would like to see a shift in the approach to PRA.

Such is the context of our bill proposal. I will now outline what the proposed bill would do. There are three strands to that: first, the removal of PRA for two specific categories of economic data; secondly, a phased approach to that removal and review of its impact; and, thirdly, the reduction to one working day of the PRA for those statistics for which five days is currently the norm. I will share the thinking behind each of those strands.

First, the bill would end PRA for two of the four categories of economic data that we identified in our original inquiry—the GDP and retail sales data. Neither of those categories of data is subject to PRA at a United Kingdom level. The Scottish Government would not lose anything that is retained by the UK Government.

The second strand of the bill would stipulate that the removal of PRA be phased: one day would be cut to 12 hours after one year and then removed entirely after two years, and there would be an independent review of the impact after three years. That review would be laid before the Parliament, and ministers would be obliged to respond to its findings.

The third strand of the bill would reduce from the current five days to one day the PRA for other economic statistics. As the Royal Statistical Society remarked of the five-day scenario during our inquiry,

“Scotland is very much an anomaly relative to almost the whole developed world.”—[

Official Report, Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee

, 26 September 2017; c 9.]

In fairness to the Scottish Government, it wrote to us, in May, with a compromise suggestion. Mr Mackay said that ministers would seek a period of one day where a period of five days now applies. That sounded promising. However, when pressed, the cabinet secretary told us that he favoured a “pragmatic approach” and did not wish to make what he regarded as “unnecessary amendments to legislation”. We, on the other hand, would rather that a five-days-to-one reform be given legislative underpinning.

At this point, it might be helpful to say what our bill would not do. It would not put the Scottish ministers at a disadvantage compared with their UK counterparts or Whitehall departments, because the statistics that we focus on—the GDP and retail sales data—are in the gift of the ONS and, hence, are not subject to PRA. The bill would not legislate on any data other than the categories of economic statistics that are specified—for example, it would not cover health or education stats.

The bill would not question—nor, indeed, do we question—the integrity of Scottish statisticians. As a representative of the UK Statistics Authority—the guardian of the independence of official statistics—told us,

“They are genuinely highly professional statisticians who do an excellent job. I just think that pre-release access makes their work harder.”—[

Official Report, Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee

, 7 November 2017; c 23.]

How is PRA viewed by the wider statistical community? The Royal Statistical Society supports ending it, the ONS supports ending it and the UK Statistics Authority supports ending it. Professor Sir Charles Bean, who led the 2016 independent review of economic data, supports ending it. John Pullinger, the recently retired UK national statistician, supports ending it. The list goes on. His successor, the former principal of the University of Aberdeen, Professor Sir Ian Diamond, supports ending it. In fact, in May 2017, he co-signed a letter to

The Times

that described PRA as “outdated and unnecessary” and “detrimental to public trust”. The letter argued that its abolition

“would cost nothing but have the very welcome effects of reducing the opportunities for media spinning, improving the health of our political system and safeguarding public confidence in official statistics.”

There were 114 signatories to that letter, among them senior academics and statisticians as well as the directors of think tanks as diverse as the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Adam Smith Institute.

Nine years earlier, in another letter, the UK Statistics Authority had argued for

“a progressive reduction in the length of time for which privileged access is granted”.

It added:

“We would encourage the Scottish Government to adopt statistical policies that promote equal access, the earliest possible publication, and minimise the opportunity to make policy proposals or comments from the advance sight of the unpublished statistics.”

More than a decade on, the direction of travel has moved even further away from PRA, and the Scottish Government finds itself on the wrong side of the argument. It can, of course, always change that.

The American poet Ogden Nash said:

“People who have what they want are fond of telling people who haven’t what they want that they really don’t want it.”

I can repeat that. [

Laughter

.] That might be helpful for members who are not fans of Ogden Nash or familiar with his works. He said:

“People who have what they want are fond of telling people who haven’t what they want that they really don’t want it.”

Members can call me an optimist if they want, because, after 19 months of trying and failing, I remain hopeful that we can make some progress today. Our premise is simple: we believe that statistics are a public asset and that they should be an aid to understanding the political and macroeconomic decisions that affect us all. As such, the numbers should be available on an equal and not a privileged basis, which is the purpose of our proposed bill.

I look forward to hearing from the minister, committee colleagues and the former deputy convener, John Mason—I nearly said “John Major”, but I caught myself.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees under Rule 9.15 to the proposal for a Committee Bill contained in the 7th report (2019) of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, Pre-release Access - Committee Bill proposal report (SP Paper 553).

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

As much as I love talking about data and I am looking forward to this afternoon’s debate, it is remarkable that this is, as the convener said, the second debate on this issue. I would have thought that there are far more pressing issues facing the economy right now to consider. There is also the matter of the time and effort that the legislation would require, should the committee introduce it. However, that, of course, is the committee’s choice.

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

Perhaps if the Scottish Government did the minimum amount of alteration to the statutory legislation, it would not take such an amount of time to deal with the matter.

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

A

s the convener has mentioned, the cabinet secretary made an alternative proposal. That pragmatic approach, which the committee referenced, would retain public confidence in economic statistics and provide Scottish and United Kingdom ministers with limited and tightly controlled PRA to statistics.

I will lay out the wider context now, and when I sum up, I will address members’ specific points.

Pre-release access is the norm: all UK Government departments other than the ONS have kept PRA. The ONS sits at arm’s length from Government, so it is quite different from the chief statistician.

I want to make it clear that there is nothing inappropriate about pre-release access to official statistics. It is in line with legislation. People receive early access only if the person responsible for producing the statistics considers it necessary and legitimate, it is not contrary to the “Code of Practice for Statistics” and it is standard practice that is not limited to ministers. For example, the Scotland Office, local authorities and others receive pre-release access where appropriate.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister contends that the Government is following standard practice. On pre-release access, the Royal Statistical Society said:

“Scotland is very much an anomaly relative to almost the whole ... world.”—[

Official Report

,

Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee

, 26 September 2017; c 9.]

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

I have looked at the evidence, which is valuable and valid. I repeat the point that, since the ONS ended PRA to its statistics more than a year ago, only the Bank of England has followed suit. Whitehall departments still operate with 24-hour PRA as per the Pre-release Access to Official Statistics Order 2008.

It is important that members see pre-release access in the context of the whole Scottish official statistics system and the unique role that statistics play in ensuring that we make the most of Scotland’s rich data sources and tap into the valuable information that is contained in our official statistics.

Of much more importance is having the statisticians with the right professional skills, the right processes and—critically—the independence to produce those statistics. If the committee legislates, it will end the independence that the chief statistician currently enjoys. I understand that the UK Government has not legislated on PRA: a decision was taken by the ONS, which is an arm’s-length organisation, to change the way in which it operates.

On ethical and trustworthy government, I am a strong believer in the ethical use and handling of data. This Government has demonstrated such an approach and continues to put that principle at the forefront of our work. In the recent programme for government, we set out clearly our commitment to the ethical use of data.

It is important that we reassure people—the public as well as members of the Scottish Parliament—that we take our responsibilities with data very seriously and that our actions need to be principled and ethical if we are to make the most of data, for the benefit of all. We are clear about our responsibilities on data and statistics.

Our long-standing position is that decision making on and responsibility for statistical matters, including pre-release access, is fundamentally for the professionals—in this case, Scotland’s chief statistician. We are not legally obliged to take that position, but we have made that call. The advice of the professionals who produce official statistics, based on their professional experience, is to have tightly controlled pre-release access, as per the legislation.

In other words, having PRA is an important part of the official statistics system. We recognise that that comes with responsibility.

A myth that I want to dispel, which the convener pursued in his speech, is the idea that pre-release access to GDP statistics, for example, gives the Scottish ministers a first-mover advantage. That is simply not the case, and to believe that is entirely to miss the point that others—the Scotland Office is one example—also get early access to GDP statistics.

We think that people who are in authority or who have responsibility for a policy area that is of national importance should be able to talk about new information with understanding, depth and accuracy when they are asked to do so, as they always will be when statistics are published.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

If this is helpful to the minister

, let me say that it is not a question of denying access just to Scottish Government ministers. I would deny access to Scotland Office ministers, too. The minister’s argument is a bit of a red herring.

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

I recognise that that would be the effect of what is proposed. I am trying to dispel the myth that somehow it is only the Scottish ministers who have access and can use—or misuse

—statistics. The Scottish ministers cannot do that, because there is access for others. Jackie Baillie is right to say that if the proposed legislation goes ahead, there will be implications and consequences not just for the Scottish ministers but for the Scotland Office and the Treasury.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

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

Yes. This is turning into a proper debate.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the minister is saying that the Scotland Office and the Scottish Government should have privileged access, why is she denying the Parliament—Scotland’s legislature—that access? That is the fundamental issue. What makes the Executive more accountable or more powerful than the legislature?

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

Nothing makes us more powerful. However, we are asked to comment, in many cases, the minute that something is published, and I would far rather that comment were informed by the facts, as opposed to being a knee-jerk response to high-level figures.

When I talk about others having access, I am not in any way suggesting that we want to preserve our access but deny access to the Scotland Office, for example. I am making the point, first, that there is an element of accountability in that regard, and secondly, that no one is denying access to statistics for those who legislate or the general public. All will have access.

My point is that PRA enables us to make a far more informed comment when something is published than just a knee-jerk response. Everybody has access to the statistics as soon as they are published.

I am going over my time, so I will draw to a close. Given the whole group of issues that the Scottish economy faces, whether it is a disorganised European Union exit or anything else, the Parliament needs to focus on and devote its energy to doing all that it can to support and protect the people, industries and reputation of Scotland. I look forward to working with the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee to do that.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee clerking team, the Scottish Parliament information centre and the witnesses who contributed to the committee’s valuable inquiry.

I will address the specific issue of pre-release access shortly, but I first want to mention the wider backdrop to the debate, which is the increasing number of concerns about the level of transparency and governance under the Scottish National Party Government. Just this weekend, there were reports that the Scottish Government has refused to answer freedom of information requests to reveal details of how £130 million of taxpayers’ money has been invested under the Scottish growth scheme. That comes on top of the recent widespread concerns over the level and accuracy of information that the Scottish Government has provided in relation to the crisis at Ferguson Marine Engineering.

That should come as no surprise from a Government that, last year, was criticised by its own Scottish Information Commissioner for secretive and biased responses to freedom of information requests from the media and Opposition parties.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does the member accept that the UK Government does not exactly command total confidence on the issue and that, on the whole, there is an issue for politicians in general and not just a particular group?

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Part of the debate, which I will come on to, is about aligning the Scottish Government’s approach to pre-release access with the best practice that is followed by the UK Government. That is the whole point of having the debate.

The SNP Government says that it has

“the most open, far-reaching freedom of information laws in the UK”,

but, as we know, the reality is very different. The concerns about open governance and transparency are reflected in the debate. The Scottish Government continues to insist on having pre-release access to vital economic statistics, which is inconsistent with international best practice, transparent government and democratic accountability and fairness. As Alex Rowley rightly said, the lack of access to information at the same time affects the Parliament’s ability to hold the Government to account.

Pre-release access gives the Scottish Government 24 hours or longer to spin a story around key economic figures, no matter how bad they are. That means that, when the information is released to the public, headlines are already dominated by the Scottish Government spin. For example, yesterday’s news that Scotland’s economy is close to recession was dominated by SNP spin that Brexit was to blame. That is an odd excuse, given that the rest of the UK economy, which is subject to the same Brexit uncertainty, is growing at almost twice the rate of the Scottish economy.

The Scottish Conservatives will support the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee’s proposal for a committee bill to equalise access to vital economic statistics. The committee is acting because the Scottish Government has refused to do so. The Government has refused to listen to overwhelming evidence that pre-release access is contrary to the “European Statistics Code of Practice” and the United Nations resolution on the fundamental principles of official statistics.

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

The member often talks about ways in which the Scottish Government should do more to boost the economy. Does he think that pre-release access is the most pressing issue facing the economy right now?

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Parliament’s ability to have equal access to information in order to hold the Scottish Government to account is an important component of what needs to be looked at.

The committee heard compelling evidence from a range of witnesses. I will not repeat everything that the convener set out, but a witness from the UK Statistics Authority made it clear that the issue is important. He said:

“why do we care so much about this? It is because, at the heart of what statistics are about, they are a public asset.”—[

Official Report

,

Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee

, 7 November 2017; c 23.]

He said that pre-release runs against that principle.

As Gordon Lindhurst highlighted, a Royal Statistical Society witness commented that five-day pre-release access to data

“is very much an anomaly relative to almost the whole developed world.”—[

Official Report

,

Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee

, 26 September 2017; c 9.]

In written evidence, the committee was told:

“We believe that ... privileged access undermines public trust in official statistics”,

which

“creates opportunities for figures to be ‘spun’ to the media or ‘buried’ beneath other announcements.”

Despite that evidence, the cabinet secretary refuses to recognise that the Scottish Government is out of line with international best practice. In response to his refusal to listen to that evidence, the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee has set forth proposals that are straightforward and represent a compromise.

There are three strands to the proposed bill. First, it proposes the entire removal of pre-release access for two categories of economic data—GDP and the retail sales index—as neither of them are covered by pre-release access at the United Kingdom level. Secondly, it proposes a phased approach to the removal of PRA and an independent review of its impact. Our idea, which we discussed at committee, is that the gradual approach and review will offer accountability in relation to the changes that we propose. Thirdly, we seek reduce to one working day the pre-release access to the economic statistics to which the Scottish Government currently has five working days’ access. Those include statistics on exports, productivity and non-domestic rates. The committee proposals will go some way to bring Scotland in line with the rest of the United Kingdom and the rest of the world.

The minister mentioned that, when giving evidence to the committee, the Scottish Government argued that the ONS approach is an outlier, in that no other UK Government department has ended pre-release access. That misses the point, which is that the ONS is the gatekeeper to key economic statistics, and it gave up the right to grant pre-release access. The scope of the bill is limited to vital economic statistics, and does not make any stipulations on sets of data other than the economic figures that I have mentioned.

The experts are clear that the Scottish Government’s approach to pre-release access is out of step with best practice and the policies that are followed in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. In the interests of transparent government and democratic fairness, it is time to put an end to pre-release access. I support the committee bill to that end.