Scottish Parliament, 30 January 2020

323 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

United Kingdom’s Exit from the European Union

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in response to the UK Government proceeding to take the UK out of the EU on 31 January through the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, despite the decision by the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved legislatures not to consent to the bill. (S5O-04077)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It is a source of real sadness and regret on this, Scotland’s last full day—at this time—in the EU, that Scotland will be taken out of the EU by the UK Government, despite there being no democratic mandate for that withdrawal in Scotland.

Given the UK Government’s track record, the Scottish Government did not expect it to respect the views of the Parliament on the withdrawal agreement bill. However, it should be noted that, for the first time since devolution, the UK Government has ignored the expressed views of all three devolved legislatures with regard to a bill that requires consent.

In any sensibly run, normal country, that unprecedented display of both discontent and solidarity should have had some impact; in the UK’s system it has had none. The actions of the UK Government are a further demonstration that it has never seen—and I suspect, will never see—the United Kingdom as a partnership of equals.

The Scottish Government will have to continue to fight to have Scotland’s voice heard during the upcoming process of negotiating a future relationship with the EU and to give people in Scotland the right to choose a better future—an action that was endorsed by this Parliament yesterday.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Tory Government is breaching the devolution settlement and treating the devolved Administrations with contempt. Tomorrow, it will drag us out of the EU against the clear will of the Scottish people. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that plainly illustrates that the only way for the people of Scotland to have a say over their own future is through a second independence referendum, which this Parliament voted for yesterday? [

Applause

.]

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Despite the applause, there is nothing exceptional in that argument. It is an argument based solely on a democratic mandate, given by the people of Scotland, demanding the right to have a choice. It baffles me how any member of this Parliament, representing any part of Scotland, can stand against the clearly expressed wish of that part of Scotland and the whole country to have a choice. Anybody who does so is not a democrat.

Queensferry Crossing (Traffic)

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reported comments by Transport Scotland officials that the volume of traffic on the Queensferry crossing is beyond what the bridge was designed for. (S5O-04078)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Close to 80,000 vehicles have been using the Queensferry crossing every day since 2017. That demand is less than the capacity, however. As we all know, demand for travel varies throughout the day, and that is what we see on the crossing at peak times.

Transport Scotland is undertaking an evaluation of the Forth replacement crossing project, in line with the Scottish trunk road infrastructure project evaluation guidance. That will consider the impact of the scheme by comparing conditions one year after and three years after motorway regulations came into force, and we expect to receive the first of those reports in spring this year. That will inform future decision making in relation to the Forth replacement crossing.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary knows that, on 28 November, we had an exchange about the serious concerns that many of my constituents have about substantial congestion, particularly on the Fife side of the Queensferry crossing and the approach road.

I tried very hard to get a meeting with the cabinet secretary, but I understand that that cannot take place until April. In his reply to me on 28 November, he said that there would be a meeting in January, after which he would be better informed about congestion issues. Will he update the chamber on exactly what was discussed?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I look forward to the meeting that I will have with Liz Smith in the coming weeks.

A meeting has taken place between the operating company, Transport Scotland and Fife Council to look at a range of issues. Apparently, it was a very productive meeting. A range of actions have been taken away from that meeting; we will look at what further measures can be put in place, working in partnership with Fife Council and other transport partners, in order to ensure that they address some of the congestion issues.

However, as is often the case at peak times on structures such as the Queensferry crossing, there will be periods of congestion when the volume of traffic is at its highest. That may continue to be the case, but further measures are being looked at to help increase the modal shift to public transport, by encouraging more people to use public transport provision to cross the Forth.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I note the cabinet secretary’s helpful clarification that the Queensferry crossing is not operating beyond capacity.

Given the need to consider increased demand for park-and-ride services, can the cabinet secretary outline what steps can be taken to make better use of the benefits of the public transport corridor across the Forth road bridge?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member is right; it is factually wrong to say that the bridge is at capacity. That was not stated by officials and it was misreported in the press.

Evidence to date shows that the public transport strategy is succeeding. It has been developed with Transport Scotland in collaboration with bus operators, the City of Edinburgh Council, Fife Council and the south east of Scotland transport partnership.

Transport Scotland will also be using its role as chair of the multi-agency Forth bridges forum to support schemes and measures to encourage an increase in cross-Forth active travel and sustainable public transport.

The Scottish Government has made a commitment to invest significantly in bus prioritisation. More than £500 million—the biggest investment ever, in this Parliament—has been invested to support greater prioritisation of bus services and to encourage modal shift on to more sustainable forms of transport, in the form of bus use.

We will also be working with councils across the country to ensure that we maximise the benefit of that investment. I expect Edinburgh and Fife councils to benefit from it as they develop proposals that meet the requirements that are set out in the bus improvement partnership programme.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Queensferry crossing was welcomed by everyone in Fife, and it is still welcome. However, it is a fact that the bridge clogs up not only at peak times. It is difficult to see why that is, but we need to understand and fix it.

Many people in Fife have told me that they cannot afford to use the railway. The cost is going up so much that people are being excluded. A coherent, joined-up public transport proposal is really needed for Fife. I have asked the cabinet secretary to meet me to discuss that.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I have no doubt that I will have a meeting with the member in due course.

The member may be aware that we will be publishing the national transport strategy next week, which will set out the priorities for improving transportation across the country—including areas such as Fife.

The purpose of the Queensferry crossing was to replace the old crossing and provide a more resilient and reliable crossing for traffic on the Forth estuary, rather than to increase capacity and support an ever-increasing volume of traffic. That is why the public transport strategy, which is associated with the crossing, is key to helping to alleviate some of that pressure. The success that we have with that will be central to ensuring that we manage those demands in the years ahead.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

The bridge may not be at capacity, but it is often very slow for commuters who are coming from West Lothian and other areas. If the lesson from the bridge is that, if you build it, people will come, why is the Government building more and more major roads at a time when we should be addressing climate change?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member has fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of the Queensferry crossing. It was not designed to increase capacity; it was designed to provide a more resilient and reliable crossing across the Forth. That is exactly what it did in its replacement of the Forth road bridge. That bridge is now a public transport corridor, which is proving to be successful, as there is an increase in its use for that purpose. We want to ensure that we build on that in the weeks and months ahead.

Digital Economy (Post-Brexit)

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

3. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has in place to ensure that Scotland remains part of the digital economy in Europe post-Brexit. (S5O-04079)

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

Scotland’s digital and financial tech sectors are among the fastest growing in our economy. Just this week, Scotland’s fin tech community achieved European recognition as a centre of excellence—the first in the UK and only the third in Europe.

We deeply regret the United Kingdom Government’s decision to remove us from the digital single market—one of the largest of its kind in the world—given the potentially grave economic consequences of that decision.

We will continue to work hard to influence the UK negotiating position to ensure that our businesses have the closest possible alignment with and access to the digital single market. To that end, Derek Mackay recently wrote to all new European Union commissioners making clear our commitment to Europe and willingness to remain aligned to EU values and rules.

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

The minister will be aware that the digital single market is worth an estimated €400 billion per year to Europe’s economy. How can she make sure that Scotland remains digitally connected to Europe to ensure that we at least keep pace with digital developments in Europe?

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

I agree entirely with Willie Coffey’s question. Scotland is one of Europe’s emerging tech powerhouses—that is increasingly being recognised in relation to our innovation and the global reputation of our businesses. Scotland’s digital industry’s export market was worth £1.46 billion in 2017. It is essential that trade continues with minimum disruption to ensure that our digital economy continues to grow and thrive. We will do everything possible to support our tech community and ensure that it has access to the European market.

United Kingdom-European Union Talks

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what involvement it has in UK-EU talks. (S5O-04080)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

At the start of the article 50 negotiations, the UK Government committed to involving the devolved Governments in the preparation of the UK’s negotiating position. However, it has failed to honour the terms of reference that it signed up to at the Joint Ministerial Committee (European Negotiations)—a point that I made clear at the previous JMC(EN) meeting, in Cardiff on Tuesday. Those terms of reference specifically say that the Governments of the UK should work collaboratively to agree objectives for the article 50 negotiations and that the devolved Governments alongside the UK Government should

“provide oversight of negotiations with the EU, to ensure, as far as possible, that outcomes agreed by all four governments are secured.”

In the past few days, we have received suggestions from the UK Government for a new set of arrangements, which we will look at on their merits. They lean heavily on proposals that I made at the January meeting. I will give more detail on that in my statement this afternoon.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I understand that the Crown protectorates, such as Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, already have, by their agreement, greater involvement than Scotland does. I am also aware that the UK Government has agreed to engage specifically with the Northern Ireland Executive

on trading arrangements with the EU and support for businesses. Does the minister believe that it intends to extend that courtesy to Scotland?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

There are two parts to that proposal. The first is the agreement of a structure in which there could be any meaningful involvement, and that would depend on a mutual recognition of mandates. The second part concerns whether the UK Government would observe the requirements of such a structure. There is a structure in place in the JMC(EN), but it has not been operated by the UK Government in the way to which it committed in writing.

I am open to a discussion on respective mandates, as I shall say in my statement this afternoon. I am open to a process being established, and we have put a proposal on the table, which is being discussed. However, it will depend on the UK Government doing what it says it will do, and, so far, that has not happened.

Clare’s Law

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to review the disclosure scheme for domestic abuse, Clare’s Law, to ensure that people deemed at risk are protected. (S5O-04081)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The disclosure scheme for domestic abuse has been fully operational across Scotland since 1 October 2015. The scheme provides a person with the right to ask police about their partner’s background if they suspect that their partner has a history of domestic abuse and believe that they may be at risk of harm. Each case is considered carefully by Police Scotland and other agencies to determine whether a disclosure is lawful, necessary and proportionate to protect the individual from their partner.

The scheme receives a substantial number of applications. Last year, 2,401 applications were received, which was a 61 per cent increase on the number of applications that were received in the previous year. A formal evaluation of the scheme will be carried out later this year by Glasgow Caledonian University in partnership with Police Scotland, following a successful grant bid by the Scottish Institute for Policing Research.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I have constituents who have been victims of abuse and are now facing the traumatic experience of possibly being dragged through the courts as their abusers use the tactic of counter-accusations to prolong their harassment. Does the cabinet secretary agree that protections need to be put in place to ensure that that type of judicial abuse is highlighted and taken into consideration when recommendations are made to the procurator fiscal?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank Shona Robison for raising an incredibly important point. I have met many organisations that work with survivors of domestic abuse, and they often raise with me the fact that the judicial process—indeed, the justice system generally—is being used by perpetrators of domestic abuse to continue their control over survivors of domestic abuse. It is something that we are very aware of and alert to, and we are taking action on it as well.

I am sorry to hear of Shona Robison’s constituents’ circumstances. A joint protocol exists between Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service that states that Police Scotland must thoroughly investigate the full circumstances of an incident to identify and report the principal perpetrator to the procurator fiscal. In addition, I am advised that specialist training by Police Scotland supports officers to identify such perpetrators’ tactics and protect victims from spurious counter-allegations. If the member wishes to give me more details of her constituents’ cases, I would be more than happy to meet her.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Chartered Institute of Housing Scotland has highlighted the challenge that social landlords face in managing situations in which both the victim and the perpetrator of domestic abuse are named on the tenancy agreement. What steps has the Scottish Government taken to ensure that the experience of abuse or violence does not lead to someone losing their tenancy?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I will, of course, look at those matters. Again, they have been raised previously by organisations such as Scottish Women’s Aid, and we take them absolutely seriously. The member might well be aware that the First Minister set out in October last year that the Scottish Government will introduce legislation in the final year of this parliamentary session to introduce protective orders, which will confer the ability to remove for a period of time a suspected perpetrator of domestic abuse from a home that they share with a person who is at risk. However, the member’s point about ensuring that the person who remains in the home does not lose the tenancy is very important indeed, and I thank him for raising it. I will, of course, look at such detail before we introduce the legislation to Parliament.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Can the justice secretary advise the chamber of the timetable for introducing the protective orders that he has just mentioned, whereby victims of domestic violence rather than perpetrators will be able to retain their homes, as was announced by the First Minister in October?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Forgive me, but I might have just answered that question in answering the previous question. The legislation is due to be introduced to Parliament in the final year of this parliamentary session. Work is being done on a number of important issues to ensure that the legislation will have no unintended consequences, which is what the previous question was about. The protective orders will, ultimately, give real protection, safeguarding and security to the many survivors of domestic abuse who, unfortunately, find themselves unable to be protected because of a risk of homelessness.

Rail Infrastructure (Highlands)

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has for improving rail infrastructure in the Highlands. (S5O-04082)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The recent £57 million Highland mainline investment has delivered performance and resilience improvements, and, by May 2020, there will be around a 10-minute journey-time saving between Inverness and the central belt. The £330 million Aberdeen to Inverness project has delivered a new station at Forres and a half-hourly service between Aberdeen and Inverurie. Additional services between Inverness and Elgin are planned for May 2020. Looking forward, the second strategic transport projects review is under way to identify the transport investment priorities for the next 20 years, and it will include Scotland’s rail network.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that response, but what he said is at odds with the Inverness city region deal, which makes no mention of rail or trains but has £64 million for the so-called west link and £109 million for the so-called east link. A modest passing loop at Lentran would increase capacity to not only the west but the north and would obviate the need for the ridiculous flyover that is proposed for the south side of the Kessock bridge. When is the Scottish Government going to prioritise public transport?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We do prioritise public transport. The member will be aware that the Inverness and Highland city region deal has been shaped by local partners, recognising the key strategic investments that are necessary to support and create inclusive economic growth in the Highlands. There is no doubt in my mind that providing the right road infrastructure is critical to that.

Alongside that, as I have just outlined, we have invested £330 million in the rail line between Inverness and Aberdeen and nearly £60 million in the Highland mainline. As I also set out, through the STPR2 process, we will look to make further strategic investments—including in rail, such as in the Highland mainline—to make sure that we continue investing in our public transport as we have in recent years.

Education

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

1. Yesterday, the Scottish Government demanded an urgent debate about which flags should be flown on the pavement outside this building. Will the First Minister support my demand for a statement next week on why her Government is failing to meet its own target to improve education in Scotland’s most deprived schools?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

It is for the Parliamentary Bureau to decide the business of Parliament, but I am very happy—[

Interruption

.] I am very happy for this Government to give statements on the work that we are doing to improve education.

The attainment fund points, at national level, to an improving system. For example, the gap between school leavers from the most and least deprived areas is narrowing, as we have covered many times before in the chamber. More young people are leaving school with highers, more are leaving with five highers and more are leaving with national 5 qualifications.

Yes, there is work to do, but we are getting on with that job. I am sure that the Deputy First Minister will always be happy to advise the chamber on that progress.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

I am pleased to have the First Minister’s support for a statement next week, and I am sure that the Parliamentary Bureau will have taken note of that.

However, this week, it has been all too clear what the First Minister’s priority really is—and it is not raising the standard of education in our schools. Her Government has set out a range of targets that need to be met to help close the attainment gap between pupils in our wealthiest and poorest communities. Those include targets that, by the end of this school year, 68 per cent of primary pupils from the most deprived areas should meet the required standards in literacy and 75 per cent should meet that standard for numeracy. On the basis of the most recent figures available, will those targets be met?

The First Minister

Our schools across the country, backed by education authorities in our local councils, are working with teachers to meet those targets. It is right that we set stretching, ambitious targets—and that is what we have done. I think that it is wrong to say that our schools are not working right now to meet those targets.

As I said in my original answer, if we look at the situation across the country, we have evidence already that points to the improvements in the system. If we look at the gap between those from the most and least-deprived communities, we see that it is narrowing.

We now have full-time attainment advisers in place in each local authority, working in a focused way with our schools to make sure that we meet the targets. Last December, we published the most comprehensive set of data and evidence on performance in education through the national improvement framework. We will continue to set out that detail, and we will be held to account on it.

I back our teachers to get on with the job of making the improvement that we are seeing across Scottish education.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

Well, that sure sounds like a First Minister getting in her excuses early. We all have a profound respect for the work done by our teachers, but it does the First Minister no credit to hide behind their hard work to mask her Government’s failures.

From analysis published this week, there is little cause for optimism. The University of Glasgow says that there needs to be a tenfold increase, in just one year, on the progress that has been seen in the past three years. Progress—where it exists at all—is taking place with nothing like the urgency required. There is next to no progress in closing the attainment gap in primary or secondary school when it comes to literacy and numeracy. Today we learn that, since the introduction of the Scottish National Party’s botched curriculum for excellence in 2015—[

Interruption

.]

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Order, please. Let us hear the question.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

We have learned today that the pass rate in 32 of the 46 Higher subjects has dropped, including in English, maths, chemistry and history. Is that progress? First Minister, is any of that in any way acceptable?

The First Minister

I will address all those points.

On the direction of travel in Scottish education, whether in exam passes—I will come back to that in a moment—or the narrowing of the attainment gap, if Jackson Carlaw does not want to take my word for it, I will quote the international council of education advisers. They said:

“Scotland is heading in the right direction and taking the right approach to improving education”.

That is what we will continue to do.

I turn to the pass rates that Jackson Carlaw talked about. As I have said repeatedly, overall, more young people now leave school with highers. Two thirds of young people get at least one, which compares with fewer than half when we took office. Thirty per cent get five or more highers, which compares with 22 per cent in 2009.

Let us look at the 32 subjects that Jackson Carlaw talked about. We have committed to publishing our analysis of the exam results, and it is absolutely right that we look at the reasons why exam pass rates are falling. I am not for a second suggesting that some of the subjects that I am about to talk about are not important; they are all very important. However, although classical studies, for example, is down, maths is up. Yes, drama is down, but physics and geography are up. If we look at the top 10 subjects in Scotland, most have exam pass rates that are up. Mathematics, chemistry, modern studies, physics, biology and geography pass rates are all up since 2015. I am not saying that we do not look at subjects for which the opposite is true—we are doing that—but the overall picture, as is so often the case, is not the one that Jackson Carlaw wants to present.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

That was lamentable. We are seeing a drop in the pass rates for 32 out of 46 higher subjects and I think that people are getting increasingly angry about the First Minister’s spin and denial of the failure of education under her Government. Being on course to miss all four of the Government’s own educational attainment targets is a definition of failure. It is as simple as that.

Primary and secondary, literacy and numeracy—those are four areas in which the SNP said that it would change things for good, but they are four areas in which the SNP is failing. There are record low scores in maths and science, missed targets on the attainment gap and, as we know today, falling pass rates in the vast majority of higher subjects.

First Minister, how many more times do we have to listen to the same lines and excuses about education being this Government’s number 1 priority, when the evidence shows that its record is one of unmitigated, continuing failure?

The First Minister

Jackson Carlaw has just described as lamentable the fact that, for the 10 top subjects in our education system—those for which there are the highest number of entries, as they are the ones that most pupils do—compared with 2015, which is what Jackson Carlaw is putting to me, the majority have pass rates that have improved. He might not think that that matters, but I will again talk about the subjects on which we are focusing. In maths, the pass rate is up since 2015, as it is in chemistry, modern studies, physics, biology and geography—two thirds of the top 10 subjects. That does not suit Jackson Carlaw’s argument, but that is the achievement of pupils and teachers around our country. That he might want to talk that down is what I think is disgraceful.

We will continue to make investment in and focus on where improvements are needed. I never shy away from saying that, but I will not stand here while Jackson Carlaw talks down education in Scotland in the way that he does.

Non-profit-distributing Model

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. The Scottish National Party Government claimed that its so-called non-profit-distributing model took the profit motive and shareholder dividend out of the building and running of public infrastructure projects in Scotland. However, this week’s Audit Scotland and Accounts Commission report blows a hole in that claim. Does the First Minister accept their conclusions, or is she in denial?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

When I was thinking about what Richard Leonard might ask me about today, I thought, “He won’t really go with private finance initiative, will he?” However, he has, and who am I to complain?

I will first give the background. We used the non-profit-distributing model because, if we had not, due to the £6 billion cumulative cut to our capital budget that was imposed by the Tories, we would not have been able to build 117 schools, hospitals and other public sector buildings. We did that through a system in which we made improvements on Labour’s PFI, with profit capping. Under Labour’s PFI, if surpluses were made, do members know they went? They went into the pockets of investors. Under our system, surpluses get reinvested into the public sector. Under Labour PFI projects, the repayments amount—because they are still being paid—to five and a half times the capital value of the projects. We got that down to just three and a half times. We made the improvements that Labour did not make. I cannot believe that Richard Leonard has the brass neck to stand up here and talk about PFI.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I anticipated last night how the First Minister might respond to my first question, so I went back to look at a report that I wrote 25 years ago—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Order.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

H

ere is an extract from it:

“The PFI is something of a con trick, predicated on a buy-now-pay-later mirage. It is a mirage because the taxpayer or the user will simply pay more in the end. It is smart accountancy but bad economics. The fact is that Government can always borrow at a lower interest rate than the private sector.” [

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Will members keep the noise down, please?

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I have been consistent on this question. Has the First Minister? [

Interruption

.]

The Accounts Commission concluded this week that the Scottish Government has failed to properly monitor and evaluate billions of pounds’ worth of privately financed contracts—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Hold on a second, Mr Leonard.

There is an unacceptable level of noise. I am sorry, but we should treat each other with respect in the chamber. Please listen to the questions that are put and then answer them in a respectful way, with less of this barracking.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

The Accounts Commission concluded that,

without proper transparency and accountability, the risks have increased and the costs have sky-rocketed. We pay three times the capital value of assets in unitary charges alone. It is what the Accounts Commission has described this week as

“a private finance cost premium”.

Why, for the past 13 years, has the First Minister presided over this rip-off?

The First Minister

First, Richard Leonard says that NPD projects cost three times the capital value. That is a vast improvement on five and a half times the capital value, as it was under Labour schemes.

On transparency, under the old Labour-supported schemes, we used to have to wait until 25 years after the asset was complete before we got the information about it. We now publish most of that material two years after an asset is complete, so there is much greater transparency.

Richard Leonard—bless—wrote a report 25 years ago. Is it not a shame that the Labour Governments that followed in the years after that ignored everything that he said? It took an SNP Government to act on the things that he said, capping the profits on the projects and making sure that surpluses go back into the public sector and not into the pockets of investors, which Labour used to allow to happen?

With my last point, I will be brief. I am sorry—I may be enjoying myself too much. Richard Leonard says—rightly—that public borrowing would be cheaper. Yes, of course, but we did not have the power to borrow publicly because Labour preferred those powers to stay with the Tories at Westminster, rather than our having them here in the Scottish Parliament. If that is belated support for increasing the borrowing powers of this Parliament, maybe we have made some progress today after all.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

We are in favour of increasing the borrowing powers of this Parliament, and we are against PFI, NPD and all the successor bodies.

Instead of the First Minister using the Parliament to speak to her party about a divisive referendum that the people do not want, or obsessing about the symbolism of a flag, let us look at the symbolism of the sick kids hospital in this city—a hospital that will not open for more than a year but which is costing £1.4 million a month in charges. That proves, as this week’s report by Audit Scotland shows, that, with her finance model, there is a transfer of reward to the private sector but no transfer of risk.

This week has shown that the First Minister has the wrong priorities. Tomorrow, she speaks to her party faithful. Today, why does she not speak to the patients, the families and the staff who are being let down in this city? Why does she not focus on their priorities?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Richard Leonard should just be relieved that he is not speaking to his own party faithful tomorrow, because they would be in despair, based on what we have just heard.

We have used the non-profit-distributing model because, over the past decade, the Tories have cumulatively cut £6 billion from our capital budget, and we did not have borrowing powers. In the past couple of years, we have obtained very limited borrowing powers, which we are using to the full. Labour did not support borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Instead of continuing to use the PFI that Labour favoured, which was such a bad deal for taxpayers and the public, we introduced a new scheme that capped the profits while transferring risk, which did not allow surpluses to go to investors and which reduced the overall cost to the taxpayer. That is what we did, after Labour presided over the PFI scandal for all those years. Notwithstanding what he wrote 25 years ago, Richard Leonard should have a long, hard look at Labour on the issue, before he comes to the SNP.

The Presiding Officer

A huge number of members want to ask supplementary questions. I hope that we will get through quite a few of them.

Property Factors

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Apex Property Factor Ltd was struck off the property factor register in April last year, after a string of breaches of the code of conduct. An appeal was heard in December and was refused. The company did not appeal again. Kevin Stewart wrote to former clients of Apex on 13 January, to tell them the good news. Three days later, constituents of mine in Motherwell received another letter, on Apex headed paper, citing an “ongoing legal dispute” and saying that an associate company, Klean Kut Ltd, had been established in order to ensure “continuity of maintenance services”.

My constituents have since received a further letter, and an invoice. It is an appalling and outrageous situation, and MSPs across the chamber have concerns about it.

Will the First Minister look at providing extra help for those homeowners to find new factors? Does she agree that the process for removing bad factors takes far too long, and that the case that I have mentioned highlights a loophole that should be closed?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Given the nature of the constituency that I represent, where there are a lot of tenemental properties, I regularly deal with constituents who have issues with factors, so I understand some of the frustrations that people have. That said, a lot of factors do a good job. The reason why we have a property factor register, and why companies can be removed from it, is to make sure that high standards are applied.

I am more than happy to look at the case that Graham Simpson raises. I do not know the details of any letters that Apex Property Factor may be sending out, but it is essential that the system works to protect homeowners. I am happy for him to send the details to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, so that we can look into the situation and see what more action, if any, the Scottish Government is able to take.

Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation Statistics (Inverclyde)

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Following the publication this week of the Scottish index of multiple deprivation statistics, what assistance can the Scottish Government offer Inverclyde Council to improve Greenock town centre?

Does the First Minister agree that it would be unlikely to improve the SIMD statistics across Inverclyde as a whole if, as Dr Alf Baird suggested at the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee yesterday, we stopped building two vessels at Ferguson Marine in Port Glasgow and built four smaller ships in China instead?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We are investing significantly in communities that face disadvantage. For example, last year more than £1.4 billion was spent in targeting support at low-income households.

On Greenock specifically, we are supporting investment through the £500 million Glasgow city region growth deal, in which Inverclyde Council is a full partner. We are making £45 million available to Inverclyde Council across this parliamentary session to support regeneration and provide affordable and energy-efficient housing. We have also made more than £20 million available to Inverclyde through the attainment Scotland fund, of which £6 million is available this year.

SIMD data is a helpful tool that supports us to target resources across the public sector, and we will continue to work in partnership with local government and others to support work to reduce inequality and the regeneration of towns and cities.

On shipbuilding, I absolutely agree with Stuart McMillan that we want to see ships built here—particularly, where appropriate, at Ferguson’s—rather than see that work go to China or anywhere else.

A83 Landslip

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister will be aware that earlier this morning a significant landslip led to the closure of the A83 at the Rest and Be Thankful pass, with drivers currently forced to take a local diversion. Landslips regularly close that section of road, cutting off huge swathes of Argyll and the west Highlands, and many communities and businesses are at their wits’ end as a result. Will the First Minister now concede that papering over the cracks is simply not working and that a long-term, permanent solution is urgently required?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am aware of that very difficult situation. As I understand it, the landslip that happened earlier this morning is in a different area from where landslips have been experienced in past years. We have done a lot of work in past years to make the reserve road available, although I understand that it is not necessarily available today. Transport Scotland and others are exploring the situation. We want to make sure that the road is reopened as quickly as possible, but safety is a key priority. In the context of our wider transport strategy, we will continue to look at further improvements that can be made. I absolutely understand the inconvenience and frustration that travellers who use that road will be experiencing today.

Kilbowie Outdoor Centre

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Tomorrow, councillors in North Lanarkshire will have to vote on the future of the Kilbowie outdoor centre in Oban. The facility offers every primary 7 pupil in North Lanarkshire, many of whom are from some of our most deprived communities, the opportunity of a residential week away to build self-esteem and improve learning through outdoor activity. The Scottish National Party council group has already stated that it will vote against the proposal. Will the First Minister join me in calling for the ruling Labour group on North Lanarkshire Council to put our young people first and to take the closure of that vital facility off the table?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Obviously, that is a matter for the local council, but I agree with Fulton MacGregor about the importance of outdoor learning. It delivers numerous benefits, including improved mental and physical health; it also helps to increase academic attainment, and it gives pupils an appreciation of the natural environment. Indeed, that is why it is built into the school curriculum. I will certainly ask the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to look into the issue and to provide Fulton MacGregor with a more detailed response in due course.

Coatbridge Freightliner Terminal

Elaine Smith (Labour, Central Scotland)

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests, which shows that I am the convener of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers parliamentary group.

I understand from the union that the Freightliner freight terminal in Coatbridge is currently under threat of closure. Will the First Minister advise whether the rail freight fund, which was announced by the Scottish Government just last year at the Coatbridge terminal, can be used to safeguard its future and the 100 jobs that may be affected?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I am very happy to look into the specifics of that suggestion and come back to the member with a detailed answer. We would certainly want to do everything that we can to help secure the terminal’s future, and if the fund is available we would want to make sure that it is used. Rather than give a categoric answer today, I want to have the opportunity to look into the matter and come back to the member properly.

Marches (Glasgow)

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The First Minister will be aware that there was another march in Glasgow last Saturday, and that a police officer was injured. Can she give any assurance that the number of marches in Glasgow will be reduced? They are a real frustration to both residents and businesses.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I understand that frustration. I am very clear—I have said this in the chamber before—that peaceful protest is an important part of our democracy, but violent and sectarian disruption should play no part in our democracy or our society. We support Police Scotland in taking appropriate action to deal with disorder, such as was witnessed on Saturday, to ensure public safety. What we saw on Saturday was unacceptable.

The Scottish Government supports local authorities in making decisions to achieve the right balance between the rights of marchers and the rights of the communities affected. I am encouraged by Glasgow City Council’s cross-party response to marches and parades and I look forward to hearing any recommendations that the group brings forward.

Maternity Services (Moray)

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As I have raised with the First Minister previously, the maternity unit at Dr Gray’s hospital in Elgin has been downgraded since 2018, with many expectant mothers having to undertake long journeys to Aberdeen or Inverness to give birth or receive vital care. This week, it has been reported that one expectant mother from Moray was forced to travel as far as Fife—more than 160 miles away—because the Raigmore and Aberdeen maternity hospitals were at capacity. With Moray being hit by winter weather this week, I am sure that the First Minister will agree with me, and with families across Moray, that that is simply unacceptable.

Will the First Minister now intervene to ensure that her health secretary acts in the interest of local families and takes urgent direct action to restore full maternity services in Moray as a priority?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The health secretary will visit Dr Gray’s hospital on 11 February to discuss those very issues.

I agree absolutely that it is important that women are cared for and get to deliver their babies as close to home as possible. In the part of the country that we are talking about, large distances add to the distress that patients, and new mothers in particular, can experience.

I understand that, but I hope that the member will understand and accept that it is vital that we ensure the provision of safe services. He is well aware of the challenges that Dr Gray’s has faced, but the health secretary is working closely with the local health board to help it to overcome those. That is why she will visit the hospital very shortly to have further discussions, and I am sure that she will be happy to keep the member updated.

Budget Proposal (Public Transport)

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

3. A week from now, the Scottish Government will publish its budget, and the Greens have made the case that it needs to be a climate emergency budget. The First Minister has repeatedly told me that, in the face of climate change, everything is under review. That must surely include transport, the emissions from which are going up, not down, as a result of the Scottish Government’s choices.

We all know that continuing to increase road capacity just generates more traffic, more congestion and more pollution. Will the First Minister give us a budget that will stop money being poured into our multibillion-pound road building programme and instead commit to making public transport more available, more reliable and more affordable?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

As Patrick Harvie said, we will publish the budget this time next week, or almost this time next week, so I am not going to go into the detail of what it will include. Suffice it to say that I am pretty sure that, when Patrick Harvie scrutinises that budget, he will see the Government’s commitment to tackling climate change and making sure that we meet the obligations and targets that we have set.

It is absolutely vital that transport is part of the transition that we make. Emissions from transport form a significant chunk of our overall emissions, and we need to get them going down. Public transport has a massive part to play in that, which is why, in the programme for government, we announced significant investment in new bus infrastructure to make bus journeys more convenient. We need to have the right balance between roads and public transport, and our decisions will, of course, be informed by the first-phase report of the Infrastructure Commission for Scotland, which was published just last week.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The Infrastructure Commission’s report is much more consistent with the Green transport policies of the past decade or two than it is with the policies that the Scottish Government has pursued over recent years.

The First Minister has kept telling us that the Government will get on with putting new, radical policies in place, but we are still waiting. If we are serious about the climate emergency, we need to give people cheap, reliable alternatives to the private car now. The Scottish Greens have made a budget proposal that would set us on that path. Our proposal is for a policy that is radical but affordable: make bus travel throughout Scotland free for young people, just as it is for senior citizens.

Does the First Minister acknowledge the huge benefits that that policy would bring to people such as the family who spoke at a Poverty Alliance event, whose son has to pay £17 a day to travel to college in Inverness? That is a huge cost for a family that is already struggling to get by. Does the First Minister deny that that Green proposal would cost a fraction of what is currently being spent on the road building programme?

The First Minister

We will consider all proposals made by all parties that choose to put forward budget proposals. We have to consider our revenue budget and our capital budget and how we can use them both appropriately to meet the needs of people in all parts of our country as well as our targets and obligations in respect of climate change.

Parallel to the work that is being done around the budget is the work to update the climate change plan, which will be published in April. One of the Green Party members, Mark Ruskell, is on the working group that will update the climate change plan, and that work is on-going. No one is in any doubt about the obligations that we have to meet. I am certainly not in any doubt about the challenging decisions that will have to be taken along the way. It is important that we get those decisions right, but it is important that we meet our obligations in a fair and just way that caters for people in our rural communities as well as those in our urban ones and does not leave people isolated or left behind.

There is an absolute commitment on the part of the Scottish Government. That will be evident in our budget and even more evident in the updated plan when we publish it, in April.

National Health Service (Waiting Times)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

4. In 2018, after 11 years in power, the Government published its national health service waiting times recovery plan, to dig it out of a hole of its own making. However, even the interim targets have not been met and the treatment time guarantee has now been broken 250,000 times. Why is there no recovery with the recovery plan?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

That is not the case, and I will tell Willie Rennie why he is wrong about that in a second. When Willie Rennie gets up to talk about these very important issues—it is entirely legitimate for him to do so—it would be good if, on occasion, he recognised that the biggest pressure on our public services over the past 10 years has been the austerity that his party started when it was in government with the Conservatives. An acknowledgement of his responsibility for the pressures that our public services have been working under might give him a bit more credibility on these issues.

Let me turn to the progress of the improvement plan. The number of out-patients waiting more than 12 weeks has already reduced by 10.6 per cent in the most recent year, compared to the previous year. We have also seen a 14 per cent reduction in the number of patients who are waiting more than 12 weeks for a new out-patient appointment. The number of diagnostic endoscopy waits of over six weeks has reduced by more than half in the past year.

Those are the actions that we are taking through the waiting times improvement plan, and we will continue to take such action. We will continue to invest record sums in our health service, supporting record numbers of staff, despite the austerity that Willie Rennie’s party imposed on the Scottish Government’s budget.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

There will come a time when the First Minister stops blaming everyone else and accepts responsibility for her own decisions.

That is not the reality. The interim targets have not been met. The First Minister’s waiting time promise for accident and emergency services has not been met for two and a half years. It is as bad in mental health: 806 children have been waiting for more than a year for treatment—the figure is up by 157 per cent. Social care is in trouble, too. Delayed discharges were supposed to have been abolished by now—does the First Minister remember that?—but 1,000 people are stuck in hospital because of a lack of home care.

Will the First Minister admit, for once, that her recovery plan is not working? How long do patients have to wait to get the treatment that they have been endlessly promised by the Scottish Government?

The First Minister

I take full responsibility for what I am responsible for. I say to Willie Rennie that anyone who thinks that our NHS has been immune to the austerity that has been imposed on us over the past 10 years does not know what they are talking about. His party was the co-architect of that austerity—even to acknowledge that would be a step forward.

We are seeing improvements as a result of the waiting times improvement plan—I have set them out—and, in spite of austerity, we will continue to invest the sums to support that progress. Let us take the treatment time guarantee figures. In Fife—Willie Rennie’s area—between September 2018 and September 2019, we have seen a 50 per cent reduction in the number of patients waiting more than 12 weeks. That is the kind of progress that our NHS staff are making, and we will continue to support them to make further progress.

The Presiding Officer

We have some further supplementary questions.

European Arrest Warrant (Transition Period)

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Scotland is about to be dragged out of the European Union by the Tories. The United Kingdom Home Office says that the European arrest warrant, which has proved to be a tremendous tool in dealing with international crime, will continue to apply during the transition period, but that is not the case. Germany’s constitution does not allow its citizens to be extradited unless that is to another EU country, so Germany has said that it will not execute UK warrants in respect of its citizens during the transition period. There is also uncertainly in relation to Austria, Slovenia and perhaps other countries. The Home Office states that, if a country’s laws prevent extradition to the UK, it will

“be expected to take over the trial or sentence of the person concerned.”

Scotland’s justice system is being weakened by Brexit. Will the First Minister advise what contact there has been from the UK Government about such a significant erosion of Scotland’s crime-fighting capability and how matters that were previously covered by the European arrest warrant will be dealt with in the transition period and beyond?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank John Finnie for raising an extremely important issue. There has been a lot of contact between Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the Scottish Government and Westminster counterparts, and we have raised our concerns about the issue. There is no doubt that Brexit, immediately and more particularly at the end of the transition period, will have a significant impact on the operation of our criminal justice system and the ability of the police to keep people safe. That is a matter of extreme concern.

I say that there has been a lot of contact, but there has not been much reassurance coming in the opposite direction, which is one of many reasons why, at a practical level, we should all be profoundly concerned about what will happen tomorrow.

More generally, for three years, we have had a UK Government telling us that everything will be fine and that nobody will notice any difference. This morning, I noticed online some travel information that the UK Government has put out, which tells people what it will be like at the end of the transition period. The European health insurance card will no longer apply, people will no longer benefit from EU mobile phone roaming charges and things will be much more difficult. We have not had any of that honesty from the Tories up until now: it is only now that they start to seep out the impacts.

When we leave the European Union tomorrow night, let us never forget that doing so is against the will of the majority of the Scottish people and that we should have the right to choose a better future.

NHS Highland

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In the past four years at NHS Highland, we have seen a botched service redesign, a radiology crisis, a bullying scandal, budgets that never balance, delays in the construction of the elective care centre and now the appointment of a third chief executive officer in 15 months.

On a daily basis, I am contacted by frustrated medial staff telling me of the latest problems that they are facing. Will the First Minister take the time to come to the Highlands and meet me and some of the doctors, nurses and patients who have been so let down?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport will meet NHS Highland in the Highlands on 10 February, and I look forward to visiting in the future.

We will continue to work with national health service boards to support them in the challenging job that they do to deliver services. Our health boards deliver excellent services to the vast majority of people in Scotland, day in and day out. Anybody who thinks that our health service has been immune from Tory austerity in the past 10 years really needs to think again. Perhaps Edward Mountain could help us in putting more pressure on his Tory colleagues, who have told us that austerity is going to end, while yesterday we saw that the chancellor is trying to force 5 per cent cuts across Whitehall.

Let us stop the austerity and the cuts that are coming from Westminster. That is one good thing that the Tories could do to help our national health service.

Alcohol (Minimum Unit Pricing)

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

5. To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update on the impact of minimum unit pricing of alcohol. (S5F-03921)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Analysis published this week shows that in the first full year of the minimum unit pricing policy being implemented, there has been a 3.6 per cent fall per adult in off-trade alcohol sales. That shows that we are moving in the right direction, particularly when compared with England and Wales, where there was a rise of 3.2 per cent over the same period. I would describe that as a promising start for minimum unit pricing, which shows that the policy will play an important part in our wider work to try to save lives from the effects of alcohol misuse.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

It is hugely encouraging that off-trade alcohol sales fell following the implementation of minimum unit pricing. Does the First Minister agree that the positive results after one year will be of interest to other countries, which will be monitoring the progress in Scotland with a view to implementing the policy elsewhere?

The First Minister

Yes, I absolutely agree. When I attended the British-Irish Council meeting in Dublin last November, it was very clear that the interest from other countries in minimum pricing remains very high. We look forward to Wales implementing it on 2 March, and I know that Ireland intends to follow suit.

I am delighted to see that the sixth global alcohol policy conference, which is being held in Dublin in March, includes presentations on the evaluation of minimum unit pricing in Scotland. We know that there is already worldwide interest in the issue and there will be interest in the event. As an outward-looking nation, we are always very keen and happy to share our learnings with European and international partners.

Scottish Prison Service (Sickness Leave)

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that Scottish Prison Service officers average three weeks’ sickness leave per year. (S5F-03904)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We recognise the importance of providing a safe environment for staff who work in our prisons. In the calendar year 2019, prison officer sickness absence fell by 3.3 per cent, compared with 2018. For the past five consecutive months, sickness absence has fallen.

However, prison officers work in a difficult and intensive environment. The Scottish Prison Service provides a range of measures and interventions for staff who require them, including occupational health support and access to counselling services. It is to the great credit of staff who work in our prisons that they perform well and that good order is maintained.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Last year, more than 14,000 officer days were lost due to stress-related absence. That figure is up by 32 per cent. Many of the pressures that lead to stress have been building for years; they include the changing nature of the prison population, the high incidence of complex mental health issues, the proliferation of new psychoactive substances and the delays in replacing the estate. Instructing establishments to deplete resources in order to cover HMP Grampian only makes the situation even more precarious.

The Scottish National Party has a record of 13 years of failure while in charge of Scotland’s prisons. When will the First Minister’s Government finally improve the situation for our officers, or can they expect more of the same and ever-rising levels of stress?

The First Minister

We will continue to support our prison officers. We are investing in modernising the prison estate. Crucially, we are also taking a range of actions, most of which have been and continue to be opposed by the Tories, to reduce our prison population, in order to make sure that fewer people—who would be better punished in the community—go into our prisons. We need to continue that important work.

As I said, over the past calendar year, sickness absence fell by 3.3 per cent. At HMP Inverness and HMP Grampian, there is a downward trend in the number of working days that are lost due to sickness. The SPS continues to work to maintain that trend.

We also support our prison officer staff. In Scotland, there will be an increase in pay of up to 6 per cent for the lowest paid, compared with a pay award of 2.2 per cent south of the border.

Although I take full responsibility for what we do in Scotland, often, when we get such questions on public service issues, the general accusation is that, somehow, it is all down to the SNP. That is why it is important to compare and contrast. The Tories are in government in England, Labour is in government in Wales and the SNP in Scotland. We can compare whether the SNP is doing better or worse. A report about Doncaster prison that is out today shows that 700 inmates are doubled up in single cells. The chief inspector of prisons in England talks about the “dangerous combination” in prisons. I will take responsibility for what we do but, when we see the state of public services south of the border, the cheek of the Tories takes some beating.

Problem Gambling

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

7. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to work with football authorities and clubs to reduce problem gambling. (S5F-03917)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

There is widespread recognition that some people who engage in gambling activity experience harm. The Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Professional Football League have stated that they have taken steps to reduce the harm that is associated with problem gambling in the football community and in wider society. We have discussed with the football authorities what more can be done. The issues of betting and gaming remain reserved to the United Kingdom Government. I am happy to join Monica Lennon in arguing for the full transfer of powers in that area to this Parliament, so that problem gambling can be dealt with in a more holistic way here, in Scotland.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

Problem gambling is a serious public health issue. Like other addictions, it ruins lives in football and in all walks of life.

Brian Rice, the head coach at Hamilton Accies, has shown courage in disclosing his gambling addiction. Today, a Scottish Football Association hearing into his alleged breaches of its betting rules is under way. It is a sad situation.

Does the First Minister agree that addiction is an illness and that we all have a responsibility to end the stigma that prevents people from seeking help? Does she agree that a gambling amnesty in Scottish football could create a safe environment for players and staff to access support?

The First Minister

I agree very much with those sentiments. As Monica Lennon said, a hearing is under way right now, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that. However, I agree that Brian Rice has shown great courage and I hope that he gets the support that he needs.

More generally, gambling addiction—like any addiction—is an illness, and it should be treated as such. We should focus much more on the support that we can provide. That is certainly the approach that the Scottish Government will take, and we are happy to work with others to provide whatever additional support we are able to.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes First Minister’s question time. We will turn shortly to a members’ business debate in the name of Keith Brown, on the Public Works Loan Board rate. We will have a short suspension to allow members, ministers and people in the public gallery to change seats.

12:45 Meeting suspended.

12:47 On resuming—

Public Works Loan Board Rate

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-19810, in the name of Keith Brown, on the

Public Works Loan Board rate

. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament condemns the recent UK Treasury announcement of an increase in the rate of borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) by one percentage point; understands that the PWLB lends money to local authorities for community infrastructure projects; is concerned by the implications of this percentage-point hike in interest rates on Scottish councils’ abilities, including Clackmannanshire Council, to carry out crucial infrastructure developments, such as affordable housing, schools, leisure and regeneration projects; agrees with a number of local authorities that this increase is paramount to the UK Government “profiteering at the expense of council tax payers”; recognises the detrimental impact that this move will have on infrastructure projects in Clackmannanshire and Dunblane and other local authority areas across Scotland, and acknowledges calls on the UK Government to reconsider its decision.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am grateful for the opportunity to lead today’s debate on the Tory-imposed increase in the rate of borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board by a percentage point, and the negative impact that that will have on the local authorities of Scotland. I am also grateful to the Labour, Green and

Scottish National Party members who signed the motion.

I recognise that many who are listening to this debate may not be familiar with the Public Works Loan Board, or the interest rates for borrowed capital funding; however, they will be aware of the many benefits that it delivers for them and their communities.

Money that local authorities borrow at an affordable rate from the Public Works Loan Board is invested in improving our schools and the futures of our children, in the regeneration of our communities, and in improving our roads and infrastructure, stimulating local economies across Scotland.

Following the worrying introduction of this Tory tax—for that is what it is—I asked a question in the chamber about the impact that the rise in the cost of borrowing would have on local authorities. It was clear from the answer by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Economy and Fair Work, Derek Mackay, that this rise—imposed by the Tories overnight, with no warning—will have a disastrous impact on the affordability of key infrastructure projects, with the effect that crucial investment could be delayed or scrapped.

What is this move if not a prohibitive tax on the rightful ambitions of local authorities for their areas and communities, and on ambitions to improve the quality of life for our constituents and boost local productivity? For Scottish local authorities with tight financial restrictions, the Public Works Loan Board is a key tool in accessing funds to invest in important capital projects. The 1 per cent increase by the Tories may appear small, but it will play a substantial part in projects costing extra millions of pounds. For example, a typical 25-year loan for a secondary school costing £30 million will now cost councils an additional £5 million. With few other options available, councils will be forced to make difficult decisions. Do they take on the costs of capital projects that have suddenly and significantly increased overnight, or will they, when faced with those costs, have to scale back on those plans or other ones? Will councils be forced to choose which members of their communities will lose out?

At a time when borrowing costs remain low and the Scottish Government has provided local authorities with more than £200 million in additional capital funding, the Tories’ decision to impose this tax is both punishing and indefensible. The Tory justification for the increase is that it is to restrict the amount of speculative spending that is undertaken by some local authorities in England, which I note are desperate actions to make up for chronic underfunding of councils by the Tory United Kingdom Government. Scottish local authorities are prevented by regulations from undertaking speculative spending. I have been in contact with the councils in my area—Stirling Council and Clackmannanshire Council—and it is obvious from what they say that the increase in costs will be key to the consideration of the affordability of future investment projects.

How can the decision be justified to my constituents? Decisions on spending on roads or other facilities that they rely on will be taken not on the basis of merit or need but on the back of cuts to local government funding in England by the Tory Government. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Government have made strong representations to the UK Government to argue that this Tory tax will have serious financial implications and will impact on the affordability of crucial local projects. At its core, this Tory tax is nothing more than profiteering at the expense of Scottish council tax payers, feeding the ideological fascinations of a Tory party that is determined to deprive local authorities of the funding that they desperately need.

Again and again, the people of Scotland are left to pick up the Tory tax bill. Take, for example, the high speed 2 project disaster, the cost of which started off at around £30 billion but is now estimated to be more than £100 billion; the botched Airwave emergency services infrastructure; or the new aircraft carriers that cost at least £3 billion more than the original estimate. Those are all major projects that are over budget and over time and they all affect people in Scotland. Continued Tory incompetence is in itself a tax that is too often endured by the people of Scotland.

The nature of the Public Works Loan Board announcement, with no forewarning, and the Tory response in its communications are shameful and show inability and unwillingness to offer creative or custom flexibility for the specific needs of Scottish local authorities. That is utterly symbolic of the contempt that the Tories continue to show for devolution and the people of Scotland. That contempt is illustrated time and again. For example, the UK Treasury budget is to be announced on the same day as local authorities here have to set their budgets and, most vividly, tomorrow, we will be dragged out of the European Union against the express wish of the Scottish people.

It is symbolic that no Tory or Lib Dem MSP signed the motion and that few members from those parties are here to take part in the debate. Despite all the hand wringing over yesterday’s debate on the EU flag, how many Tories are here today to discuss an issue that will have a material impact on the people and communities that they represent? How easy it must be to be a Tory MSP and to stand up in the chamber week after week to ask for larger spending commitments while their bosses in Westminster cut budgets with abandon; to talk the talk of local empowerment while backing wrecking amendments to finance bills, axing crucial support for small businesses and jeopardising local government funding; and to work themselves into a fury over a flag while their Prime Minister embarrassingly sought to crowdfund for Big Ben to bong this Friday night.

This Tory tax is an issue that will really matter to the lives of their constituents, who are the ones who will use local community spaces, roads, schools and libraries. A lack of investment caused by this Tory-imposed tax will be keenly felt, and more so by those who rely most on public services.

Tory MSPs show their constituents contempt when they refuse to turn up to justify or even attempt to defend this indefensible policy. The UK Government has, as usual, neglected to consider the needs of the people of Scotland, and when its attention has been drawn to that fact, it has predictably chosen to double down.

Our communities and the people who live in them deserve this investment. Fundamental decisions such as this will impact on millions of people across Scotland, and they should not be made on a whim by uncaring Tory politicians in Westminster, far removed from the consequences of their actions.

Frustratingly, this is a UK Government matter, outside the control of this Parliament. So, it falls to the union, if it has any meaningful purpose or any interest in its self-preservation, to show the necessary flexibility for Scottish councils. The Tories must, without delay, either reverse this punitive tax or create the conditions so that Scottish councils can access the funding that they need to deliver for the people whom they serve. To refuse to do so—or to refuse to even consider to do so—only further strengthens the argument, which grows more persuasive by the day, that there exists no other option than that this Scottish Parliament must hold the full powers over its own affairs, and that Scotland must become an independent and equal country, so that we can make the necessary changes to better empower and deliver a more positive future for the people whom we represent.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to contribute to Keith Brown’s members’ business debate.

The Public Works Loan Board is one of the main sources of local government borrowing. Its purpose is to allow councils to access finance at a relatively low rate in order to fund infrastructure projects. Although there is an overall cap on the amount that local government is able to access, in October 2019 that was increased by £10 billion, from £85 billion to £95 billion. The Public Works Loan Board does not ask councils what the money will be used for. Neither does it undertake any due diligence or business case checks as to whether the borrowing is prudent. Loans can last for up to 50 years. Regardless of the council’s credit rating, all that is needed for the loan board to supply the funds is a reference number and the required amount.

As a result, councils have borrowed huge sums to invest in commercial property, as the Public Works Loan Board’s low interest rates have given them an immediate advantage over potential competitors in the private sector. The prudential code, which provides guidelines to local authorities, prohibits borrowing for the sole purpose of making a profit, but in practice it has been up to councils to decide whether they wish to do so, and whether that is correct.

That has been questioned, because many believe that full scrutiny and governance may be required. Holding councils to account is left to the electorate, many of whom are unlikely to be informed of or understand the consequences, because councils can and do withhold key details under the auspices of commercial confidentiality.

Therefore, the UK Government took the view that a review was required. Many councils in Scotland have vastly depleted funds as a result of budget cuts—we know that COSLA and many others have made strong representations about that. However, the decision was made to have a 1 per cent increase. The intention was to put a limit on the amount that councils are borrowing, because some of the borrowing has been for commercial investments and much of it has been for refinancing debt portfolios that many councils have.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would like to continue.

The consequence of that borrowing can be that councils struggle to repay the debt that they take on. Indeed, Her Majesty’s Treasury recognises that such borrowing might impact on the ability to invest in infrastructure.

It is important to note that the 1 per cent increase will take the rate back only to the level that was available in 2018. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s associate director, Andrew Burns, who is himself a former finance director, said that there has been an overreaction to the change. He said:

“the November move to increase the cost of borrowing by one percentage point was unsurprising given the widespread expectation that the government was close to having used up all its borrowing ‘headroom’.”

Analysis of Scotland’s 32 local authorities showed that they owed £11.5 billion of these moneys to banks or the scheme set up by the UK Treasury. A typical council will spend the equivalent of 42 per cent of its council tax money to service those debts. Clackmannanshire, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Highland, Inverclyde, South Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire will all spend at least half of their council tax revenues on servicing such debt.

I recognise that the increase may be perceived as adding pressure on Scotland’s local authority finances. However, councils will still have the opportunity to borrow funds that will secure investment for projects that will benefit the quality of life of communities and constituencies across Scotland.

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

I thank Keith Brown for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject.

Before I move to the central thrust of what I want to say, I will respond to a few things that were said by Alexander Stewart. He said that the aim is to put a limit on what councils borrow, so why not change the rules on what they can borrow for rather than put costs up? He also said that councils are struggling to service debt. I am sure that increasing the interest rate by 56 per cent will not help them to do that. Under the prudential borrowing rules that councils work within, they will have to reduce the number of projects that they fund by that mechanism by a third in order to pay the same interest as they are currently paying. Therefore, the effect of this small change in terms of the amount of interest that might be paid each year is fundamental to the way in which councils are able to renew public infrastructure.

Let us remember that it is the Public Works Loan Board: the money is for public works. It is simply unacceptable that, in hard times, the UK Government is making it fundamentally more difficult for councils in Scotland—indeed, across the UK—to do what their local communities require. Many councils, including my own, rely on the PWLB.

Last year, £819 million was borrowed, so the increased rate is going to have an impact—members can work that out for themselves. Fife wanted funding for a new campus for Woodmill high school, St Columba’s high school and Fife College. Clackmannanshire and Dunblane needed funding to increase affordable housing and improve their schools. Aberdeen budgeted for £481 million to be spent on capital projects over the next five years, of which £293 million was to be borrowed. All those plans may now be delayed or halted altogether. That is the real, on-the-ground effect. Alexander Stewart said that councils are suffering—how does the increase help them and the communities that they serve?

The underlying cause of the increase—I recognise that it is a valid issue—is illustrated by Spelthorne Borough Council, in Surrey, which borrowed £1 billion. For what? For a school or a community centre? No, it was used for commercial investments. I do not think that any of us would defend that council’s use of the money for that purpose. However, if councils’ doing things like that is the problem, increasing the interest is hardly the solution. The solution is to change the basis on which councils can borrow.

Woking Borough Council, which is also in Surrey, borrowed £1.2 billion, a large proportion of which was used to buy the town’s main shopping centre. Those are risky commercial investments that are not central to public works, the development of new facilities or the improvement of existing ones. The funds are meant for sustainable community development that will directly improve the lives of residents. If a main road requires to be built, a council has to find the money. Borrowing costs are a significant part of councils’ costs—that is for sure—but increasing the PWLB rate is simply going to increase that significant burden.

The PWLB places all authority to determine the usage of its loans on the councils, and most councils behave responsibly. Let us not allow the majority of our councils to be penalised for irresponsible spending by the likes of Spelthorne Borough Council. Let us make a distinction between that and loans being taken out for proper purposes. It is time for the UK Government to rethink the matter and take a different approach to solving the genuine problem that led to this issue.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I, too, put on record my thanks to Keith Brown for raising the issue, lodging the motion and securing the debate. It is right that the Scottish Parliament condemns the recent UK Treasury announcement of an increase of one percentage point in the rate of borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board. I hope that, if it has not already done so, the Scottish Government makes the views of the Parliament known to the UK Government.

As the motion states,

“the PWLB lends money to local authorities for community infrastructure projects”,

and

“the implications of this percentage-point hike in interest rates on Scottish councils’ abilities, including Clackmannanshire”

and Stirling, Fife and Perth and Kinross councils,

“to carry out crucial infrastructure developments, such as affordable housing, schools, leisure and regeneration projects”

will be greatly reduced. It is not only a matter of the UK Government profiteering at the expense of council tax payers. The detrimental impact that the move will have on infrastructure projects across Scotland is why the Parliament must unite in its call on the UK Government to reconsider its decision.

I note, as Alexander Stewart did, that Andrew Burns, an associate director at CIPFA, said that the increase was a

“clever way of curtailing commercial property investments.”

It seems that the UK Government was motivated by the desire to curtail councils’ buying up property to create income streams that would offset Government cuts to their budgets. Stewart Stevenson gave the example of Spelthorne Borough Council, in Surrey, which borrowed £1 billion to buy office blocks. That is madness. More important, it is not acceptable that all councils have to pay additional interest because the Government is not happy about some councils’ borrowing. As Stewart Stevenson rightly said, that is what the UK Government needs to address.

In March 2017, I led a members’ business debate in support of the campaign by Unite Scotland to have all Scottish councils’ historical debt written off by the UK Treasury. In that debate, I said:

“An amnesty is a matter of political will and there is certainly precedence, as witnessed by the UK Treasury write-off of a £900 million housing debt in Glasgow City Council—it can be done.”—[

Official Report

, 7 March 2017; c 87.]

Let us be clear that the issue is about political choices. Keith Brown is correct to raise the increase in the interest rate, and I am happy to stand alongside him in fighting to get the UK Government to change its mind. I look forward to discussing what more we can do on the issue on a cross-party basis.

Yesterday, I heard the deputy leader of Inverclyde Council, Councillor Jim Clocherty, being interviewed on the BBC about the fact that an area in the centre of Greenock is now the poorest and most deprived in Scotland. He said that the council is investing £3 million in the area. However, when he was asked what would make the biggest change to the area, he answered, “Ending austerity.”

Let us be clear that failed Tory austerity is the root cause of many of the problems that councils face. Not content with causing those problems, the Tories are now trying to make it more difficult for councils to support communities who are experiencing the impacts of that failed Tory austerity. Let us unite against these measures and stand up for people and communities across our country. Let us bring an end to failed Tory austerity once and for all.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Kate Forbes to respond to the debate.

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

I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government, because the motion for debate is critically important. At first glance, the issue might appear to be somewhat dry and technical, with only a marginal financial impact, but, as Keith Brown set out in his opening remarks, the UK Treasury’s decisions have had a profoundly damaging impact on local authorities.

At issue are two concerns. The first is that, time and again, the Treasury makes a decision solely in the light of a situation in England that then has a very negative impact on Scotland. Secondly, as Alex Rowley said, the rate rise highlights the impact of austerity, which at its root is based on policy decisions by the UK Government. As the motion highlights, the recent UK Treasury announcement of an increase in the rate of borrowing from the PWLB is already having a detrimental impact on plans for local authorities’ infrastructure, which affects us all. Those are not just my views, but what local authorities are telling us.

The PWLB rate rise was significant. On 8 October 2019, the 25-year annuity loan rate was 1.6 per cent; the next day, it was 2.62 per cent; and last week, it was 2.87 per cent. From any viewpoint, that is a significant rise. To put it in context: for a £10 million loan, the extra interest is about £1.3 million over the life of the loan. If we scale that up to the multimillion pound projects that our local authorities undertake, the increase in the cost of borrowing is clearly evident.

Alex Rowley asked me to make sure that I made this Parliament’s views known to the Treasury. I have already done that, but I will happily do it again. In response to the PWLB rate rise last October, I wrote as a matter of urgency to the UK Treasury to express my concern, and I know that some local authorities have done likewise. My letter set out that the capital investment plans of local authorities will have been based, quite understandably, on the prevailing interest rates and that the increase would affect the affordability of those plans and might lead to local authority investment plans being scaled back or delayed.

In real terms, those are plans for infrastructure projects, transport projects, schools and other community infrastructure. I am sure that members across the chamber will agree that such a move to scale back or delay investment plans would have a detrimental impact on the ambitions of our local authorities and the aspirations of our communities. Those ambitions improve the outcomes for the day-to-day lives of the communities that we and local authorities serve, across the spectrum of the critical services that they deliver, including housing, education, social care, transport and tackling the climate emergency. If we couple that with the negative economic impact of any scaling back of investment plans, we can see how there is a knock-on impact on the economy, particularly at a time of continuing budget cuts from the UK Government.

I was sorely disappointed by the response that I received to my two letters, because the UK Treasury confirmed that its decision had been taken in light of the situation in England and without an understanding of the knock-on impact on Scotland. The Treasury refused to change its position and advised that the rate increase only restored the rates to those available in 2018, as Alexander Stewart mentioned, and that local authorities made significant and valuable capital investments at those rates in 2018. However, that response singularly fails to recognise that lower rates mean more capital investment is possible, as the revenue consequences of borrowing are less.

I do not fully support the proposition that the UK Government is profiteering at the expense of council tax payers, but the UK Government fails to understand the impact of the rate increase. I suggested in my letter to the Treasury that one of the reasons for the increase in the PWLB rate was the significant increased borrowing by English councils to fund commercial investment for financial return, rather than to invest to deliver services. Although the Treasury acknowledged that, in Scotland, different rules apply to such investment, I was advised that the increase applied to Scotland, as the significant amounts of lending that the Treasury saw over last summer also came from local authorities in Scotland. That is a very narrow view of Scottish local authority borrowing. The PWLB annual reports show that Scottish net borrowing over the prior four financial years was only £549 million.

In addition, an Office for Budget Responsibility report last July raised concerns about the expansion of borrowing by English councils on potentially risky investments. The report identifies that a single small council in England acquired £1 billion of PWLB debt in just three years. I am not aware of any such borrowing by councils in Scotland.

If I step back from the technical arguments of the UK Government’s decision, it is clear that, once again, local authorities in England are responding to the crisis in which they find themselves. That crisis was confirmed again just a few weeks ago by a COSLA spokesperson on finance who highlighted to a parliamentary committee that local authorities in England are cash-strapped and struggling.

That is not the case for Scottish local authorities. However, the Treasury’s decision—which it made without a thought to the impact on Scottish local authorities—will certainly make it far more difficult for local authorities in Scotland to invest in the infrastructure on which our communities rely.

I am disappointed that, despite my two letters to the Treasury, it has not chosen to revisit the issue. It has dismissed the legitimate protest that I raised on behalf of Scottish local authorities. Essentially, it has said, “Grin and bear it, because we don’t care.”

I support the motion in the name of Keith Brown. I hope that members across the chamber recognise that the PWLB interest rate rise has made capital investment for local authorities more difficult, which affects the affordability of their plans. Ultimately, the Treasury made the decision and responsibility lies with it. I think that all members should be united in condemning the Treasury.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you. Before I close the debate, I highlight that the minister may have said something inadvertently. I clarify that it is the views of the Scottish Government that have been made known to the UK Government and not the views of this Parliament, which has not debated the issue.

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

I am sorry.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the debate.

13:16 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Business Motion

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

We resume business with consideration of business motion S5M-20668, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a revision to today’s business. I ask the minister to move the motion.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Thursday 30 January 2020—

after

followed by

Scottish Government Debate: Drugs and Alcohol – Preventing and Reducing Harms

insert

followed by

Financial Resolution: Scottish Biometrics Commissioner Bill.—[

Graeme Dey

]

Motion agreed to.

Social Isolation and Loneliness (Highland)

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

1. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met the Highland Council and NHS Highland to discuss social isolation and loneliness. (S5O-04069)

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

I have not met Highland Council or NHS Highland specifically to discuss social isolation and loneliness. However, local authorities are a vital partner and I discuss their crucial contribution with Councillor Kelly Parry of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, who is co-chair, with me, of the national implementation group for our social isolation and loneliness strategy. Imperative to success is our joint working with wider members of the national implementation group, including YouthLink Scotland, the Campaign to End Loneliness, Chest Heart & Stroke Scotland, Voluntary Health Scotland, Generations Working Together, sportscotland, Befriending Networks, Age Scotland, the Carnegie UK Trust and Architecture and Design Scotland. Lots of joint work is going on.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for that answer and for the long list of people she is working with. Age Scotland’s share what you love campaign aims to cut the loneliness and isolation figures in half by 2025 by encouraging everyone to spend a small amount of time with an older person who lives alone. Can the minister confirm whether the Scottish Government, Highland Council and NHS Highland are working together to support that campaign? If so, what specific actions are they taking?

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

I thank Edward Mountain for that follow-up question. He is absolutely right about the share what you love campaign and the importance of spending time with people. Members might have noticed this week that PG Tips, in co-ordination with Age UK, has a great social media campaign about sitting down, having a cup of tea and catching up with people.

We take such campaigns seriously, we support them and we work closely with Age Scotland and others on them. Edward Mountain can be reassured that we are committed to them. Sometimes, just having a cup of tea, phoning up somebody that we have not seen for a while and spending time with people that we have maybe fallen out of touch with can really help to tackle social isolation and loneliness. That is even more important in rural areas, where it can be difficult to meet up with people.

Such campaigns are key to the work that we are doing. I am keen to hear more about what Edward Mountain is involved in in the Highlands and Islands, and maybe we can share some of that joint working.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

As convener of the cross-party group on older

people, age and ageing, I know that loneliness and isolation is a recurring theme both in the Highlands and Islands and across the rest of the country. For many older people who suffer from loneliness and isolation, a television can be a lifeline. Will the Scottish Government continue to make the case for the United Kingdom Government making a U-turn on the decision to end free TV licences for Scottish pensioners and funding that vital service for our older people?

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

Sandra White will not be surprised to hear that I was deeply disappointed by the BBC’s decision, which was ultimately a result of the UK Government shifting what should be a welfare policy on to the BBC and shirking its responsibility to support older people.

The BBC’s plans to introduce a means-tested waiver based on pension credit will fail to help many vulnerable people, yet, in 2021-22, it will still cost about £250 million to administer. I hope that the 1.3 million households across the UK that are eligible for pension credit but do not currently claim it will now do so. There has never been promotion of that important benefit, and many people will continue to be unaware that they are entitled to it.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the UK Government should recognise its responsibility and fund free TV licences for all over-75s.

Scottish Child Payment

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government how many children will be eligible for the Scottish child payment when it goes live. (S5O-04070)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

An estimated 170,000 children aged under 6 will be eligible when applications for the Scottish child payment are opened in autumn this year, with first payments being made by the end of 2020. Of all children living in poverty, almost 60 per cent are in a household where the youngest child is aged under 6. Given that the early years in a child’s life are key for their long-term outcomes, we looked hard at what we could do to support those families more quickly. That is why we are launching the benefit two years ahead of our original timetable.

Once the payment is fully rolled out, it will benefit up to 410,000 children, lifting 30,000 children out of relative poverty. At a cost of £180 million a year, that is a significant investment in our children and families.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that excellent answer. The Scottish child payment has rightly been described as a game changer that will make a massive difference to families across Scotland. The cabinet secretary has said that she will encourage people to get their applications in early, due to the expected volume. How will she ensure that eligible families get that message?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We are committed to reducing poverty and ensuring that payment reaches those who need it most. Extensive communication campaigns will support that, particularly through Social Security Scotland, and we will continue to actively promote the payment to eligible families—just as, at Inzievar and Holy Name primary schools this morning, I promoted the continued take-up of the best start grant school age payment. As with all our benefits, we will work with stakeholders and partners to embed its promotion into local services such as midwifery, nurseries, and school placement services. That builds on the success of the best start grant, whereby the pregnancy and baby payment paid out more in two months than had been paid out in an entire year by the Department of Work and Pensions benefit that it replaced.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Earlier today, the Social Security Committee heard from the Scottish commission on social security a recommendation that the Government consider a double lock to upgrade the child payment: to increase it by either the consumer price index or median income growth, whichever is the higher. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that she will accept that recommendation?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I have listened carefully and responded to previous reports from the

Scottish commission on social security, and I will do the same for the latest one, in detail. I am grateful for the support that it is providing to the Scottish Government and for its work within th

e tight timescales that we are setting.

We have already made a number of changes to the regulations as a result of SCOSS’s considerations of the Scottish child payment. For example, we introduced a 12-week linking period when people fall out of the qualifying benefit or child responsibility benefit entitlement, to make sure that they stay in our system, in case they become eligible again. I continue to listen to the commission, and I will respond in due course to each of its recommendations.

Vulnerable Older People

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to protect vulnerable older people. (S5O-04071)

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

Nobody should be subjected to any form of harm or abuse, and we take strong action to protect the most vulnerable in our society, including our older people. For example, we have made the ill treatment or wilful neglect of adults receiving health or social care a criminal offence, and we recently consulted on hate crime legislation, including the introduction of a statutory sentencing aggravation of age-related hostility.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for that response, and I recognise that some positive steps are being taken.

The statistics paint a worrying picture. Figures from Action on Elder Abuse found that almost 1 in 10 elderly Scots had fallen victim to crime, including physical abuse, thefts and intimidation, and that only a fraction of those offences had led to prosecution. Additionally, 94 per cent of people think that older people are specifically targeted for abuse due to their perceived physical frailty or mental vulnerability. Does the minister agree that no elderly person should ever be subjected to any form of abuse and that protecting those vulnerable communities should be a real priority?

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

I agree, absolutely. Liam Kerr will have heard in my initial answer about the work that we are doing on the proposed hate crime bill, and I know that he takes a particular interest in that. I have listened to the issues that have been raised with the Government by Action on Elder Abuse. We have no plans right now to create a specific offence of elder abuse, but we are looking at how we could do that through the proposed hate crime bill. We have the issue always under review, and we are always talking to the people who are involved in the area. Action on Elder Abuse is a key partner in the work that we are doing.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

For far too long, the United Kingdom Government has ignored the issue of pensioner poverty, with its unfair treatment of women who were born in the 1950s, its cutting of pension credit for mixed-age couples and its taking of TV licences from some pensioners. Does the minister agree that vulnerable older people would be better protected if the powers were taken away from Westminster and given to the Scottish Government?

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

The minister should just say yes.

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

I will not, because he might get too used to that.

The Scottish Government has written to the UK Government numerous times on the issue of the women who are affected by state pension increases, urging it to find a solution to support those women. As we know, that has been constantly refused. I appeal again to the UK Government to look again at the WASPI women’s situation and to address the issue now.

The Scottish Government estimates that the UK Government’s decision to remove entitlement to pension credit for mixed-age couples could lead to an annual loss of as much as £7,000 per household and that it could affect as many as 5,700 Scottish households by 2023-24. That is an unacceptable doubling down of policies, causing harm to older people, and we have called on the UK Government to reverse that decision.

We will continue to invest more than £100 million to mitigate the worst impacts of the UK Government’s welfare reforms, but it is clear that the best way to protect the most vulnerable older people in Scottish society would be a full transfer of powers over social security to the Scottish Parliament.

Older and Disabled People (Access to Services)

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what action it takes to ensure that older and disabled people can easily access local services. (S5O-04072)

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

The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity. The Scottish Government is working to promote equality across Scotland through the strategies in “A Fairer Scotland for Disabled People” and “A Fairer Scotland for Older People”, with work being taken forward locally. Equality law recognises that bringing about equality may mean that local services make changes, such as removing physical barriers or providing extra support. That relates to the duty to make reasonable adjustments. Reasonable adjustments seek to ensure that older or disabled people have, as far as is reasonable, equal access—that is, the same access as everyone else.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

Obviously, much of the information about local services is on the internet, which some people may have difficulty accessing. Will the Scottish Government join me in recognising the work of AbilityNet, a charity that provides technology support for people of all ages who live with any disability or impairment? Is there anything that the Scottish Government can do to support AbilityNet’s aim of helping to build a more accessible digital world?

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

I absolutely agree with the member’s point. I have not come across AbilityNet, so I ask Alexander Burnett to send on any information that he has on the organisation. I reassure him that digital connectivity and the ability to access digital information are very high on the agenda in our fairer Scotland strategies for disabled people and older people. I include in that the use of assistive digital technology as a means by which older and disabled people can get on in their everyday lives and maintain their independence. I am absolutely committed to that. If Alexander Burnett has any other ideas about how we can improve in this area, I will be happy to hear them.

Older People

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in taking forward the proposals in its paper, “A Fairer Scotland for Older People”. (S5O-04073)

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

The Scottish Government will publish the first progress report on the framework for action in “A Fairer Scotland for Older People” in April 2020.

The first annual report is being co-produced with our key stakeholders in the older people’s strategic action forum. I will next meet the forum on 25 February, and I am looking forward to discussing the progress that we are making with the more than 50 cross-cutting actions contained in the framework and to considering other ways in which we can develop our work to ensure that people are healthy, happy and secure in older age anywhere in Scotland. The members of the older people’s strategic action forum always ask me to emphasise the word “action”, because that is what they are looking for.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister for that helpful response. Recent figures show that more than half of workers over the retirement age in Scotland want to continue to work. That is to be welcomed, as older people have a wealth of experience and skills to contribute to the economy. However, in order to do that, they will need support to reskill or retrain. What specific steps is the minister taking to help older people to reskill and retrain, especially given the thousands of part-time college places that have been cut and the lack of apprenticeship opportunities for older people?

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

I agree whole-heartedly that older people want to work longer, although some of the women involved in the women against state pension inequality campaign, who have to work longer, have a different perspective on the matter. In Jamie Hepburn’s portfolio, work is being done around a fairer Scotland in the workplace, including on maintaining healthy environments and on people’s ability to retrain and take up training opportunities. I am involved in one such piece of work on older women in the workplace, involving support for women who are going through the menopause to maintain their place in the workforce. I am sure that Jamie Hepburn will be happy to give the member an update on the work that he is doing.

Intergenerational Support

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to promote intergenerational work to support older people. (S5O-04074)

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

The Scottish Government values intergenerational work because it breaks down barriers between generations, tackles negative attitudes to ageing and strengthens our local communities.

We have funded our national experts on intergenerational good practice, Generations Working Together, to the tune of £95,000 in the 2019-20 financial year to build more inclusive communities and ensure that integrated, intergenerational approaches create positive change.

Over the past year, I have been on many visits and attended many events, all of which have been joyful, but the most joyful visits have been to projects on intergenerational working, because they involve an extra bit of magic.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment, which is outlined in the framework for action, to encourage activity that brings generations together.

Following the success of intergenerational living projects in Denmark and the Netherlands, is the minister aware of the calls that have been made by organisations such as Age Scotland for intergenerational living to be piloted? Such pilots could involve, for example, older people renting out a room to a student or having younger people living in or alongside care homes. Are there any plans to pilot such schemes in Scotland?

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

In the intergenerational work that we are doing, which involves different generations working together in communities, the great programme in Denmark, in which younger people live and work with older people, comes up time and again. A number of local authorities are looking at that programme. I do not have up-to-date information on where they are with that work, but I hope to raise the issue at the next meeting that I have with them. If I get additional information on the issue, I will let Mr Balfour know what is happening. I know that some developmental work is on-going, but I am not yet in a position to tell him about it; I will get back to him.

Social Isolation (Rural Communities)

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it tackles social isolation among older people in rural communities. (S5O-04075)

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

People can feel isolated or lonely at any age or at any stage of life, and where they live can play an important part in that. That is why we consulted communities across Scotland, from Galashiels to Lerwick, to hear their views on how we can support people to build connections and on how we can enable that through transport, housing, public spaces and digital technology. Those conversations directly informed the development of “A Connected Scotland: our strategy for tackling social isolation and loneliness and building stronger social connections” and will underpin the upcoming delivery plan, which is on its way.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

The retired farming social group in Dumfries and Galloway has been tackling loneliness and isolation for the past two years. Around 50 members attend meetings on a monthly basis. For a variety of reasons, people with rural and agricultural backgrounds often become isolated, but the group’s future is at risk because of a lack of funding to help to pay for travel costs.

How can the Scottish Government assist with funding to support the group to expand and become sustainable for the future?

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

I thank Finlay Carson for raising that issue, which Emma Harper has raised with me as part of her work. The group has invited me down for a visit, which I hope to go on very soon. I get to go on lots of visits, and I hope to get round them all.

The member is absolutely right about some of the pressures that the group has raised. It has asked us about financial support, and we have suggested that it look at some of the opportunities that exist to get involved in community planning and funding. We have passed on further details about how the group can do that, but if there is any more that the member thinks that we can do, I would be happy to hear from him.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The answer that the minister has given to Finlay Carson means that my question has been responded to, so I will not take up any more of the chamber’s time.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you very much, Ms Harper. There is a lesson there for every member.

Welfare Reform (Disabled People)

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

8. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the United Kingdom Government’s welfare reforms are having on low-income families in Scotland that include a disabled person. (S5O-04076)

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

On 23 January, the Scottish Government published its report on the impact of the UK Government’s welfare reforms on disabled people. The report shows that the existing benefits system makes it too difficult for disabled people to access the support that they need and are entitled to. Since the introduction of personal independence payments, 39,000 people have lost their disability benefit entitlement. Since then, there have been 30,000 cases across Scotland in which claimants of disability benefits have had to go through a stressful appeals process to receive what they were rightfully entitled to after the Department for Work and Pensions initially made the wrong decision.

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

Recent figures show that the DWP refunded employment and support allowance to 112,00 people who were owed it, but sadly 5,000 of those people died before they received the money that was rightfully theirs.

No system will be free from human error, but the rising number of DWP mistakes point to a systematic problem. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, if the Tories continue to refuse to fix the problems embedded in the system, social security powers of that kind should be transferred to Holyrood so that we can build a system that puts dignity and fairness at its heart?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

It is, indeed, shameful that 5,000 people died before they were paid what they were entitled to through the DWP’s reassessment process—a process that was only necessary due to the DWP’s own errors. The devolution of disability assistance means that we can introduce a decision-making process that will be robust but fair, and in which we will do all that we can to get the decisions right first time. However, many benefits claimed by disabled people, including ESA, which Alasdair Allan mentioned, remain reserved to Westminster. The Scottish Government cannot address all the unfairness in the current UK benefits system without the further devolution of powers over social security. It is imperative that all powers relating to social security are devolved to the Scottish Parliament to protect the most vulnerable people in our society.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that PIP has now been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. In her answer to Alasdair Allan, she indicated that she felt that the mobility criteria were being falsely interpreted by the DWP, which was having a bad effect on individuals in Scotland. Will she confirm that the PIP regulations to be introduced by her Government will be radically different from those of the DWP?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

What is important is not just the regulations—important though they are—but encouraging people to apply for support for which they are eligible, making the application process as simple as possible and having a decision-making process that gathers information speedily and correctly so that the decision that is made is right the first time. I am absolutely confident that, through Social Security Scotland, how we deliver social security in Scotland will be radically different from what is done by the DWP.

European Union Exit

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

The next item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on European Union exit. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I want to provide an update on the EU-United Kingdom negotiations, including Tuesday’s meeting of the joint ministerial committee on European negotiations where, along with representatives of the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Government—making a welcome return to the forum after three years’ absence—I discussed the role of the devolved Governments in the forthcoming negotiations.

Before continuing, I must acknowledge the desperately sad fact that, despite the unambiguous message of the Scottish electorate in the referendum in 2016 and in subsequent elections, the UK and Scotland will be leaving the European Union at 11 pm tomorrow—although we will be back. After tomorrow night, the UK will become a third country.

One minute past 11 on 31 January may feel no different from one minute before 11, but a profound change will have taken place. No one should be lulled into a false sense of security by that initial sameness, because at one minute past 11, the clock will start again, ticking inexorably down towards the end of the year, when the UK Government insists that the transition period must end, and when we will feel the full impact of what is the most damaging change to our constitutional settlement in generations. It will be ticking down, once again, to no deal or something very similar, with all the extra hardship that that will entail.

The Scottish Government’s single overriding concern over the 42 months since the Brexit referendum—in which we did not choose to leave the EU—has been to protect Scotland’s national interests.

We will continue to do everything that we can, inside and outside the formal structures, to minimise the profound damage that Brexit will inevitably cause. That is why I continue to attend increasingly difficult meetings of the JMC(EN).

I go to those meetings because it is vital that Scotland’s core interests—those include the competences exclusively held by the Scottish Parliament—are always spoken for and protected.

It is a fact that the JMC(EN) terms of reference, agreed jointly by heads of Government in October 2016, have so far never been fulfilled. The JMC(EN) is ostensibly the mechanism by which the four Governments

“seek to agree a UK approach to, and objectives for,”

and have

“oversight of”,

negotiations—those are the words of the protocol—in order to secure joint outcomes.

The core problem is that the actions of UK ministers have never matched those commitments, despite the best efforts of the devolved Administrations to persuade them to do so. There are many examples of that disrespectful behaviour—too many to list in full. They began as early as January 2017, when the then Prime Minister announced in the Lancaster house speech her intention to leave the single market and customs union without any consultation and without even considering the detailed arguments that we set out in “Scotland’s Place in Europe” only a few weeks before. It has gone on, right up to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, which we saw in its final form only after it had been sent to Westminster to begin its parliamentary process.

We know that UK Government departments are now working feverishly on negotiating positions and proposals. Ministers have had no sight of those, despite a formal request being made by us and the Welsh Government at the meeting of the JMC(EN) that was held in London earlier this month. How can we contribute effectively to the development of the UK negotiating position on the most broad and complex negotiations in living memory while being left in the dark about the way in which the UK Government is shaping its own approach?

The fact is that the UK Government has ignored our views, and those of the people of Scotland, throughout the Brexit process. We have repeatedly tried to alter that pattern. Three weeks ago, at the meeting in London, I acknowledged, openly but with regret, the electoral mandate that the UK Government has for Brexit. However, I continue to think that it is fundamentally the wrong approach and will damage Scotland enormously. Regrettably, the UK Government has refused to reciprocate and will not acknowledge the clear mandate that we received to give Scotland the right to choose.

Without mutual recognition of mandates, there can be no trust. With a mutual recognition of mandates, we could start to move forward. With that in mind, I also proposed a model for engagement in the second stage of negotiations. The model suggested an approach that would allow detailed discussion of devolved competences and could make a difference if there was also a genuine commitment from all parties to take part and make it work. With a recognition that Scotland will be able to choose this year whether to become an independent country, the model could provide a period of stability in the political structures and allow a more constructive dialogue. However, it cannot work if there is no binding commitment to it through a reformed intergovernmental relationship, the UK Government proposals for which have not yet been provided to the devolved Administrations, despite promises.

Alas, the UK Government has also made the situation worse by two actions in recent days. First, after this Parliament refused on 8 January by a margin of 92 votes to 29 to give its consent to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, the Northern Ireland Assembly did the same on 20 January, and the Welsh Senedd followed suit on 21 January. That is a unique situation, but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union responded by simply confirming that the decision of all three devolved bodies would be ignored. In fact, they went further, insulting our intelligence by profusely supporting in their statements the very convention—the Sewel convention—that they had just buried forever.

Secondly, as members in the chamber heard in the debate yesterday, the Prime Minister wrote two weeks ago to the First Minister rejecting summarily her request for a section 30 order that would allow the right of Scotland’s people to choose their own future.

For more than three years, the Scottish Government has sought to engage with the UK Government in the Brexit process. We have developed and passed primary and secondary legislation for withdrawal, and ensured that Scotland is as ready as we can make it for exit, however much we oppose and regret that fact. We have played our part: the UK needs to reciprocate. We must move beyond the current process, mandated by the UK Government, which does not allow constructive engagement and meaningful input, and restricts our ability to protect Scotland’s interests.

How do we make progress? The negotiations, like all aspects of our relationship with the UK Government, cannot be treated as business as usual without a mutual recognition of mandates. Once again, we have done our part. The UK Government must do its part, and it is enabled to do so afresh by the vote in this Parliament yesterday to take forward a new referendum. Despite the shadow that the situation casts over the negotiations, I will continue to seek the meaningful engagement with the UK Government that will allow me to protect Scotland’s interests. That is now urgent, with negotiations likely to start with the EU in a matter of weeks.

At the JMC, alongside my devolved Government colleagues, I identified the two essential components of the step change that is required. The first is for the UK to provide the necessary detail of its developing thinking, in order for us to have a meaningful discussion of the UK negotiating mandate. We are ready to have that discussion at the earliest possible moment but, in order to contribute in a constructive way, we need the information that the UK Government has. The UK must commit itself to a process, no matter how brief, that is seen to offer the devolved Administrations a clear and effective input to that vital final document.

Secondly, the UK Government must give us confidence that, in spite of all the previous false dawns, it will work with us on the negotiations in a way that meets our legitimate expectations and the remit of the JMC(EN). We need to see the imminent UK proposals for the new relationship between the Governments. As devolved Governments, we must be given the space to consider them together and to seek changes as required, with a view to securing statutory backing, in order that—for as long as we are part of this union—we have a platform for discussion and decision making.

It is my sincere hope that this Parliament will support the continued efforts of the Scottish Government to ensure that the legitimate voices of this Parliament and of Scotland are heard in the most important negotiations that any of us are likely to witness, and that it will support the constructive way that we are going about it.

We oppose many things in the Brexit process, as well as the process itself. We must continue to have the right to argue against the UK Government’s reckless decision to rule out any extension to the transition period. Imposing an arbitrary end-of-2020 deadline will sacrifice the depth and quality of any future relationship and, at best, will result in a bare-bones agreement that will serve no one’s interests.

It is a stark fact that, tomorrow, we leave—dragged out against our will, despite the clear instruction of the Scottish people.

Scotland has the right to choose its own future, and the best option for Scotland is to be an independent country in the EU. In the meantime, we will stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of Europe around our shared values and interests, while doing everything in our power to ensure that none of Scotland’s interests are adversely affected as the Brexit process continues. That is a mature way to go forward, but it requires the UK to show an equivalent maturity and a respect for democracy.

Scotland might lie on the edge of Europe, but we have always been—and want to remain—at its heart. We are committed to doing all that we can to get back to where we belong. As we do so, we ask all the remaining 27 members to leave a light on for Scotland as we navigate our way out of an incorporating union that does not work for us into a union of equals that does. We will leave a light on here, to guide us back into our European home.

We ask the UK to behave like the decent, generous democracy that it has been and—I hope—will be again, and to work with us as friends and neighbours as we make our choices for ourselves.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you, cabinet secretary. We have around 20 minutes for questions.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of his statement and I welcome the fact that his voice is slowly recovering.

The cabinet secretary recognises the UK Government’s mandate for Brexit. Therefore, as a matter of logic, he must also accept the UK Government’s mandate for rejecting another independence referendum.

The statement says nothing new and, in a week in which this Government has excelled at such practices, is yet more grievance and grandstanding. I expected the statement

to contain a number of factual matters and detailed proposals about the practicalities of the next 12 months. As the cabinet secretary says, they will involve the most important negotiations that we will know between the UK and the EU, as well as a number of UK Government bills that will have a significant impact on the people of Scotland—the first of those being the second reading of the Agriculture Bill.

Whether it be fisheries, farming, the environment or trade, those are matters of great import to the Scottish economy as a whole and require to be promoted in a constructive and meaningful way. However, it seems incredible that the Scottish Government will not engage unless its constitutional demands are met. To use the cabinet secretary’s phrase, how is that protecting Scotland’s national interests? Is it seriously his position that no dialogue between the Scottish and UK Governments can occur without the UK Government recognising the Scottish National Party’s demand for another independence referendum? When the livelihoods of so many Scots are at stake, does he feel comfortable operating such a veto?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

There is no veto being exercised by any organisation except the UK Government. It is exercising the veto, not the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament.—[

Interruption

.]

I know that Mr Rumbles is really enthusiastic about being with the Tories; however, perhaps he could pause for just a moment and allow me to answer the question. He will, no doubt, have his turn.

The reality of the situation is that I laid out very clearly in my statement the way in which we can work together and the structure that we can put in place; indeed, that structure was proposed by me. It is disingenuous—to say the least—of Mr Cameron to misrepresent that.

It is also shameful to deny the right of Scotland to choose its own future. Any politician in this chamber—who is elected by the people of Scotland—who does that is not observing democracy. [

Interruption

.]

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

Ha! Ridiculous.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

There is always hollow laughter from Professor Tomkins, particularly when he is uncomfortable with the position that he is holding—and he should be desperately uncomfortable with the position that he is holding, because it denies the right of the Scottish people to determine their own future.

We will continue to work—[

Interruption

.] We will continue to work with the UK Government to try to get the best for Scotland. I have laid out the difficulties in that, and I would have expected members of this Parliament to stand with the Scottish Parliament and Government in trying to get the best for Scotland; instead, however, they want to stand with the people who are trying to stop that.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I want to make it clear that Labour in this Parliament will continue to support the Scottish Government’s efforts—along with those of the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly—to be at the table as equals in order to minimise the damage of Brexit on Scotland.

However, in his statement, the cabinet secretary confused the issues with his obsession with independence.

As I made clear yesterday, Labour believes in the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine our own future, and that is why we say that there cannot be a referendum any time soon. The cabinet secretary stated that Brexit will be the most damaging change to our constitutional settlement in generations. Why, then, would he want to add even greater constitutional upheaval, and why is he ignoring the wishes of the majority of the people of Scotland, who do not want another referendum in 2020 amidst all the chaos that Brexit will bring?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am grateful to Mr Rowley for acknowledging the reality of the situation and that we all should sit round that table as equals. However, the sovereign right of the Scottish people to choose their own future is not a light bulb that can be switched on and off—it is an absolute. As the Scottish people wish—and are determined—to have the right to talk about their own future, they must have that right.

The reason why that must happen in 2020 is very clear—we need to put an end to the uncertainty. Scottish business, industry, third sector bodies and higher education all need certainty, and that can be guaranteed this year with a referendum for which we have a mandate. [

Interruption

.] Although I am grateful that the Labour Party is inching towards the reality of the situation, it has a bit yet to go in recognising both what sovereignty is, and the need to bring the matter to an end as soon as possible.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I ask members on the front benches to desist from making exchanges, as I cannot hear the answers.

I have 10 members who want to ask questions; some of them, although they are on my list, have not yet pressed their request-to-speak buttons—they had better press them now.

In order to get them all in, I ask for quick, short and succinct questions; good questions, yes, of course—but short.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland voted against the withdrawal agreement legislation, and consent has been withheld. Has that unprecedented constitutional position prompted the UK Government to reconsider in any way its entirely disrespectful attitude towards Scotland and the other devolved Governments?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No, it has not; indeed, there is considerable annoyance from the other Administrations that, instead of its recognising that fact, there is an allegation from the UK Government that none of the Administrations voted on the issues that are in front of them, and that they voted only on the Brexit issue. Indeed, I know that the Welsh have taken this up with the UK Government directly, and that they are very annoyed that, instead of paying attention to the objections to the bill that the Welsh Parliament had, the UK Government has tried simply to gloss over them.

There has been no movement on the matter. How anybody can say that we support the Sewel convention while—in essence—digging its grave, I do not understand.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

The overwhelming majority who voted for Scotland to remain in the EU will have watched yesterday’s emotional scenes from the European Parliament with regret and sadness. Scotland can become an EU member again as an independent country, but, until we get a say on our future, we have to do everything that we can to protect Scotland’s interests and public services. Therefore, if the cabinet secretary’s wholly reasonable requests for representation for Scotland in the Brexit negotiations and negotiations on other trade deals are ignored, how will his Government protect Scotland’s national health service from a UK Government that, as we approach the cliff edge of the end of the transition deal, will be increasingly desperate to do a trade deal with Trump?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The member makes a good point. We have made proposals about a structure that would work to allow participation in those matters. It must be a structure in which we all sit together round the table as equals, as Mr Rowley said, and one through which we can defend our interests. There is no hierarchy of Governments in devolution; there is a hierarchy of Parliaments. We have responsibility for the Scottish NHS and we should be able to speak up for it and defend it in the negotiations, which is what we intend to do. It would be best if the UK Government recognised the need to put in place a structure and was willing to be bound by it in the way that the UK Government expects us to be bound by it. We certainly want that to happen.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

In this sad moment of division, it is disappointing that the cabinet secretary is refusing to co-operate in Scotland’s interest unless the UK Government agrees to another divisive independence referendum. I do not accept that the SNP has the support of the majority of people for a referendum. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Just a minute. We heard the cabinet secretary, and we should hear everybody else. Please continue, Mr Rennie.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I do not accept that the SNP has the support of the majority of people for another divisive independence referendum. Will the cabinet secretary therefore remove the SNP’s referendum boulder so that we might have a chance of co-operation and partnership as we enter the trade negotiations?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The member’s misrepresentation of my position is as bad as that from Donald Cameron, but that is not surprising because, alas, they are both Tories of the same mould, as we know from Mr Rennie’s statements yesterday.

We are endeavouring to find a solution so that we can get the right structure to move forward, and we have made proposals on that. I hope that those proposals can take us there. However, it would be a pointless negotiation if I simply said, “That’s it—you do what you want.” That might be how Willie Rennie negotiates, but it is not how the Scottish Government negotiates.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Ahead of the 2014 referendum, when the European Commission was asked about an independent Scotland’s membership of the European Union, its response was to say, in effect, that it does not comment on the internal affairs of a member state. From 11 pm tomorrow, the UK will no longer be a member state. Given the good will towards Scotland that clearly exists across Europe, what potential is there for the Scottish Government and political parties to engage more closely with our European friends and neighbours on a future trade deal and on Scotland’s return to the EU as an independent country?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It is clear from all that we have seen this week that there is a huge well of support and sympathy for Scotland because of the position in which we find ourselves. The important thing is for us to move forward in a legitimate, constructive and constitutional way, recognising how we can re-enter the EU. The EU will never say to any country, “Come away in; it doesn’t matter who you are—just join in.” There is a process to be gone through, and we will go through it. However, having had some experience of 2014 and having seen the EU at close quarters in the past few years, I know that there has been a sea change in attitude. I am absolutely certain that we will be able to negotiate a beneficial way for Scotland to re-enter the EU.

Adam Tomkins (Conservative, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary claims that he has engaged constructively with the United Kingdom ministers. In his trade paper, he demanded no fewer than five vetoes over international trade, which is a reserved matter. How is that constructive engagement?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I do not think that anybody should have a veto. If there is no veto applied and no veto from the UK, there should be no veto from anybody else. However, Mr Tomkins is supporting a system whereby the UK Government and his mates in the Tory party have a veto on everything that we do and we have no protection at all. That does not strike me as a negotiating tactic; it strikes me as a surrender to the UK Tory party. No doubt, Mr Tomkins thinks that that is a good idea, but very few others in Scotland think so.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Scotland’s working-age population risks being plunged into decline by hostile Tory immigration policies. The Prime Minister describes the Scottish Government’s immigration proposals, which have been backed by expert organisations, as “fanciful and deranged”. Can the cabinet secretary tell me whether, in JMC meetings, the UK Government has ever accepted the case for a migration policy that is tailored to Scotland’s particular needs?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We have provided an enormous amount of information to the UK Government on a vast range of subjects—I am holding just some of the papers that we have published—and we have given it lots of information on migration and Scotland’s specific needs. There has been no indication of a change of attitude.

I want to touch on the words that Boris Johnson used—“absolutely fanciful and deranged”—about the paper that he had not read. The people who are “fanciful and deranged” would include, then, the former Conservative MP for Stirling, Mr Kerr, who said that they were “worth looking at”, the writer of a leading article in

The Times

, the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, the chief executive of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the director of Reform Scotland, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the director of Universities Scotland, the public affairs manager of NFU Scotland and the director of the David Hume Institute, all of whom have supported the publication of our proposals—although not necessarily each individual proposal—and the views that we have put forward. It is not just the SNP—we are obviously deranged—but those people who, according to the Prime Minister, are “fanciful and deranged”. We have, unfortunately, a deranged Prime Minister who thinks that.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We have to rely on reports from the Scottish Government and the UK Government about what happens. We are entering tough negotiations. Following the recent JMC meeting, Michael Gove said that the Scottish representatives were stressing

“the importance of making sure that we’re outside the common fisheries policy.”

Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that, if Scotland was to re-enter the EU as an independent nation, we would have to accept the common fisheries policy?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

What I accept is that there is a process of negotiation to be done on fishing interests and fishing rights. The attitude of the UK Government at the moment is unrealistic in that regard. Obviously, there have to be changes, and it is the Scottish Government, and this party, that has argued over many years for changes to the common fisheries policy. I wish that we had been supported by Labour on that matter. We talked about the way that the CFP needed to change long before the Tories did, because the Tories were enforcing the CFP. That is the reality.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

This Parliament’s Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee wrote to the UK Government asking for information on what will replace the €940 million that Scotland will lose with the end of the European structural and social funds, which support everything from training young people, to small business loans and support for the disabled. Does the cabinet secretary agree that those funds must be replaced in full and that the Scottish Parliament must have democratic oversight of how they are distributed?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I agree that a very worrying situation is developing. If it is true that a final decision on all these matters has to be reached by the end of this year, there are now just 11 months to put in place a shared prosperity fund. As a former environment minister, I was involved when one type of Scottish rural development programme funding moved to another type, and that took 18 months to resolve. I do not think—[

Interruption

.]

Mr Tomkins, of course, wants to defend that. He would defend anything that the Tories did, no matter what it was. The Tories will impoverish the third sector, but Mr Tomkins will be in favour of that, because it is the Tories who are doing it. It is an extraordinary position for him to find himself in. It is intellectual gymnastics that, I must say, are not worthy of him in any way.

The reality of the situation is that there will be many bodies that will suffer greatly, because the UK Government has made as much a mess of this, as it has of all its other responsibilities. We will do our very best to protect the third sector and rural Scotland against that but, unfortunately, the UK Government is doing something absolutely unconscionable in terms of the damage that it will cause.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will try to get the last few questions in, if they are short.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

It has been 24 short hours since the Scottish Government introduced a debate on the constitution, but 24 long months since it introduced one on education. Does that not sum up perfectly the priorities of Mr Russell and his party? I ask this very simply: why does the Scottish Government continue to refuse to accept that the Scottish people voted to remain part of the UK? Would that not be the democratic thing to do?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

This Parliament did not last debate education two years ago; that is another—I suppose that I cannot use the word, but that is what it is. That is another one from the Prime Minister. It is a fact that this Parliament debated education two weeks ago, so Jamie Greene falls on the first part of his question.

On the second part, Jamie Greene may well have been hiding somewhere for the past five years, but Brexit changed everything. Indeed, tomorrow changes everything. There has been a material change in circumstances.

I know that the Tories will not apologise for what they are doing, because they would never apologise for the damage that they are doing, but Jamie Greene must realise that things have changed profoundly since 2014. Many of the people he knows will say that to him—he is just not prepared to listen to them.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am keen to hear the cabinet secretary’s response to the views of senior members of the UK Conservative Party who are of the opinion that,

“It doesn’t matter one jot what the Scottish Parliament has decided”.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I deeply regret that, because I think that the Parliaments and Governments of these islands should be trying to work constructively together. However, those UK Conservative Party members are encouraged by the attitude of the Scottish Conservatives. That is regrettable, because the Scottish Conservatives want to roll over and accept anything that they are told to do.

I suspect that members of the UK Government judge this Parliament by the Scottish Conservatives. They should not do that, because they will find that the members on the SNP benches are made of far tougher stuff.

Drugs and Alcohol

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-20635, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, on drugs and alcohol: preventing and reducing harms. I call Joe Fitzpatrick to speak to and move the motion.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

November 2018 saw the publication of two key strategy documents that were aimed at reducing the harm that is associated with alcohol and drugs. Those documents were: “Rights, Respect and Recovery” and the “Alcohol Framework 2018”.

A year on, there is much that we can reflect on, learn from and celebrate. However, we can also agree that there is much that we, as a country, still need to do. Reducing problematic drug and alcohol use, and the associated harms and deaths, remains one of the most difficult challenges that we face.

Levels of alcohol-related harm remain far too high. In 2018, adults in Scotland drank an average of 19 units per week—some 36 per cent more than the low-risk guideline of 14 units per week. There were 1,136 alcohol-specific deaths in 2018—an average of 22 deaths every week.

On drugs, the story is even more stark, with 2018 having seen the highest number of drug-related deaths ever recorded. I have stated on numerous occasions that each and every one of those tragic deaths is ultimately avoidable.

We have also seen a significant rise in the number of hospital stays related to drug use, while the number of alcohol-related admissions remains at a similar level to that seen in 2017-18.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I am going to make some progress, but I will come back to the member.

Tackling the harms has to include addressing the underlying reasons for those addictions. Previously, we have focused too much on addressing the substances rather than the individual. Going forward, we must be more person centred in all approaches to treatment, but there are contributory factors that remain outwith an individual’s control. We know that people who experience socioeconomic disadvantage experience problematic use. The recent burden of disease study found that the overall burden for drug use disorders was 17 times higher in deprived areas. Both of our strategies identified that tackling poverty and inequality is central to reducing harmful use of alcohol and drugs. Suffering adverse childhood experiences also significantly increases the likelihood of lifetime illicit drug use and drug dependency, and it increases the chances of early alcohol use. The evidence for that is clear.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

I am going to make some progress. I will come back to the member if there is time.

Understanding and addressing the impact of adverse childhood experiences is crucial to safeguarding children’s current mental and physical health and wellbeing.

We have made a commitment to develop trauma-informed approaches in services, which will ensure that workers and staff have the necessary training in and understanding of these complex issues. Our approach on alcohol is rooted in the World Health Organization’s “best buys” of affordability, availability and attractiveness.

Scotland is a global leader on alcohol policy—we have delivered 915,000 alcohol brief interventions since 2008, we have legislated to ban irresponsible promotions and we have introduced a lower drink-driving limit. With support from across the chamber, we also introduced minimum unit pricing, which was a world first.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

As I said, I will make progress and, if there is time, I will give way once I have got through the important matters that I have to cover.

On Tuesday, NHS Health Scotland published the first full year of off-trade sales data since minimum unit pricing was introduced. The data are hugely encouraging and show a 3.6 per cent drop in sales per adult. That reduction in consumption marks real progress, which I am sure the Parliament will welcome. I have heard calls from some members for a higher price to be set. I will keep that under review alongside all emerging evidence.

Tackling attractiveness is also vital if we are to reduce consumption and harms. Our count 14 awareness-raising campaign launched its second phase last week, and I urge all MSPs to promote it and amplify its message—which is to keep risks low by staying within the maximum of 14 units per week. The evidence is clear that alcohol advertising being seen by children and young people is associated with their starting to drink alcohol or, among young people who already drink, their drinking more alcohol. We know that the earlier a young person begins to drink alcohol, the more likely they are to drink in ways that will be risky later in life.

To address that, the framework contains two significant actions to restrict alcohol marketing: pressing the UK Government to restrict television and cinema advertising of alcohol, and consulting on a range of measures within our devolved powers, including mandatory restrictions on alcohol marketing.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way on that point?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

As I said, I want to make progress. I want to update the chamber on the task force’s work, which is the next item that I will cover.

I asked the Young Scot health panel to take forward the findings of the Children’s Parliament report, which was published last year, and it expects to report in the spring. As is set out in our alcohol framework, I will also bring forward a consultation on the issue, which I plan to publish later this year.

We will continue to take a public health approach on drug use and the current emergency that we have around drug-related deaths. That means examining the evidence on what we know works and what will help to keep people alive. There is no shortage of evidence on the topic; in fact, the past few months have seen the publication of a number of reports that have highlighted the issues. Those reports all note the challenges that Scotland faces and make recommendations on what we could be doing.

However, they all agree that there is no single solution to the problem—there is no silver bullet. Instead, what is required is a multi-layered approach from our health and social care sector and beyond. The need for a multi-disciplinary response is reflected in the make-up of our drug deaths task force—a membership that I selected specifically to effect change in key areas where new action is required.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

As I said, I will outline some of the work of the task force, which I know members are keen to hear about. There will be plenty of time for debate later.

The task force will continue to develop pieces of work that will directly address the current number of drug deaths. In the short term, it has focused on making sure that, where possible, we provide people with the tools that they require to keep them alive, which, in relation to overdose deaths, is the drug naloxone. There has been a significant push to increase the availability of that drug, which can reverse the effects of an overdose. For example, yesterday, I announced the funding of a pilot with the Scottish Ambulance Service, which will allow it to trial distribution of naloxone to individuals following a non-fatal overdose. If that trial is successful, we expect that practice to become the norm and that it will be rolled out across Scotland.

Furthermore, the chair of the task force has been working with the chief pharmaceutical officer on a proposal to train all community pharmacists in the administration of naloxone and to have naloxone available if requested, thereby providing a potential life-saving service should they be approached in an emergency.

In December, I wrote to naloxone leads in health boards, requesting that they contact homelessness services to ensure that naloxone is made available to the shelters and facilities that are being used by some of our most vulnerable people during the coldest months of the year. Again, that was to ensure that kits, peer support and appropriate training are accessible when required.

The chair of the task force and I also wrote to alcohol and drug partnerships and integration authorities to provide them with the task force’s first set of formal recommendations for reducing drug deaths. We need to see those recommendations in local strategies for 2020-21. The recommendations cover targeted distribution of naloxone, improvements to medication-assisted treatment and immediate responses to non-fatal overdoses.

The task force is also working on a number of longer-term projects, including producing a set of national standards for the delivery of medication-assisted treatment. That work will help to reduce the variation in how services administer MAT, and it is backed up by strong evidence. The standards will give people choice in the type and dose of their medication as well as access to same-day prescribing of MAT, which is something that I am asked about regularly. That will mean not limiting people to methadone but also including buprenorphine and Suboxone.

I will respond to the amendments in my closing remarks, but I note that, in relation to the first part of Alex Cole-Hamilton’s amendment, the sub-group will also look at diamorphine-assisted treatment and will be able to recommend whether the current pilot in Glasgow should be extended and rolled out.

Another focus for the task force is the role of our justice system, recognising that there is more that we can do within and through the justice system to improve outcomes for individuals in appropriate cases. Both Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service are task force members, and the Lord Advocate fully supports its work.

People who experience problematic drug use are unwell and need treatment, care and an end to the isolation that drug use can bring. In Scotland, we continue to develop innovative—

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

Time is limited, and I am covering the actions of the task force—there is a lot to get through.