Scottish Parliament, 17 June 2020

359 contributions from 59 members. The official report.

First Minister’s Question Time

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Good afternoon, colleagues. As usual, I remind members to be careful about observing social distancing guidance in the chamber and throughout the building, but particularly when coming into and out of the chamber.

I ask the First Minister to introduce First Minister’s question time with a short statement.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will give a brief statistical update.

Since yesterday, an additional 21 cases of Covid-19 have been confirmed, which takes the total number now to 18,066. A total of 965 patients are currently in hospital with suspected or confirmed Covid-19, which is a decrease of 21 since yesterday. That includes a decrease of 14 in the number of confirmed cases. As of last night, 24 people were in intensive care with confirmed or suspected Covid-19, which is an increase of five on the number that I reported yesterday. However, I stress that that increase is all in suspected cases. Unfortunately, in the past 24 hours, nine deaths of patients who had been confirmed as having the virus have been registered, which takes the total number of deaths in Scotland under that measurement to 2,462.

National Records of Scotland has just published its more detailed weekly report. Those figures report deaths where Covid has been confirmed by laboratory tests and cases where the virus was entered on a death certificate as a suspected or contributory cause of death. The latest NRS report covers the period to Sunday 14 June. At that point, according to our daily figures, 2,448 deaths of people who had tested positive for the virus had been registered. However, today’s report shows that, by Sunday, the total number of registered deaths with either a confirmed or a presumed link to the virus was 4,070. Of those, 70 were registered in the seven days up to Sunday, which is a decrease of 19 from the week before. This is the seventh week in a row in which the number of deaths from the virus has fallen. The total number of excess deaths, which is the number above the five-year average for the same time of year, also decreased again, to 32 in the most recent week. Deaths in care homes made up 50 per cent of all deaths linked to the virus last week. However, the number of Covid-19 deaths in care homes reduced again, from 42 to 35.

All those figures are still higher than I would ever wish them to be and I know that downward trends will never console those who have lost loved ones. My thoughts and sympathies continue to be with all of them. However, as I have said, the weekly number of Covid deaths has now fallen for seven weeks in a row, and they are now at less than a ninth of their peak level. The numbers of excess deaths and care home deaths also continue to fall.

Tomorrow, I expect to be able to confirm that we can move from phase 1 to phase 2 of our plan to emerge from lockdown. I will set out much more detail on that tomorrow. However, we will continue to proceed in a cautious and phased way because the more we hammer down the virus now, the more normality we can ultimately get back in all aspects of our lives.

Our test and protect system is, of course, vitally important to our plans to emerge safely from lockdown. Health Protection Scotland has just published further data on that system, showing that, from 28 May to last Sunday, 992 cases were reported in which the individual tested positive. Contact tracing has already been completed for 891 of those cases and is on-going in others. In total, 1,239 contacts have been traced so far. I remind everyone watching that if they have symptoms of Covid-19, they should book a test immediately and follow the advice on self-isolation.

Again, I ask everyone to continue to adhere to all elements of the public health guidance and advice. It is making a difference, as those statistics demonstrate, and I thank everybody across the country for continuing to do the right thing.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, First Minister.

Schools Reopening

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

1. I again welcome the sustained fall in the number of fatalities from Covid-19, although, obviously, those fatalities are still distressing. Our thoughts are with those families, but the sustained fall is welcome.

Professor Sridhar, who is one of the First Minister’s key advisers on coronavirus, has said that, as long as Covid-19 cases are low enough come the middle of August,

“schools should re-open as normally as possible”,

with children back full time. Does the First Minister agree with Professor Sridhar’s analysis? Will she put in place a plan to deliver that?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, I agree whole-heartedly with

Professor Sridhar’s analysis. As an aside, I deprecate anyone who has cast aspersions on Devi Sridhar’s integrity this morning.

I agree with the totality of what Professor Sridhar says, not just the bits of her analysis that suit my particular argument. I want to get schools back to normal as quickly as possible and our economy back to normal as quickly as possible. However, I know that all of that has to be safe. We cannot have memories that are so short that we already forget that we are dealing with a virus that is dangerous and potentially deadly, and that it has not gone away. Therefore, we must continue to move forward in a careful and phased way, and that is what I will continue to do.

The key part of what Professor Sridhar and other experts will say is that we must suppress the virus even further if we are to have that ultimate and—I hope—speedy move back to normality. I ask people to bear in mind the totality of her advice when I stand here tomorrow and—yes—announce further steps out of the lockdown, which I will continue to do in a very careful and cautious manner.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

We all understand the difficulty here. It is not enough simply to deprecate all those who ask questions, whether they are politicians or journalists. Many parents are looking for a commitment from ministers to at least try to get schools back to normal for the beginning of term. What is disappointing those parents is that that does not seem to be the ambition that is being set.

As many parents have put it, if we can build a new hospital to look after patients, as we did so magnificently, surely we can find equally drastic solutions to support our children.

Professor Sridhar’s point is that a community-based testing regime that helps to see exactly where the disease is spreading would clearly give teachers and parents reassurance that schools are safe to return to normal.

The question is obvious, and it brings us back to the testing issue that we have raised for several months. Will the First Minister commit today to ramping up our testing capacity and—this is important—our usage of that capacity during the summer so that, by August, opening schools full time, if it is safe to do so, is a realistic and achievable option?

The First Minister

For the record, I do not deprecate anybody who asks questions; I deprecate people who cast aspersions on the integrity of an expert. It is really important to be clear about that.

I have given a commitment, and I will do so again today. I will move heaven and earth with my ministerial colleagues to get this country back to normal in every aspect of our lives as quickly as possible. Nothing is more important in all of that than getting our children’s education back to normal and, of course, ensuring that we put in place plans to allow children to catch up on missed education. I take that responsibility very seriously. I also take seriously my responsibility to ensure that we get through the crisis as safely as possible.

We have two strands in place in education right now. First, in common with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we are having to contingency plan to bring schools back with physical distancing in place, because that is what the evidence tells us right now is required. Within that, of course, our challenge is to maximise the time that children can spend in schools. That is why we are scrutinising councils’ plans so carefully.

The second strand is to consider and take advice on the alternative measures that we might be able to put in place to allow schools to operate, safely, as normal. That involves continuing to suppress the virus and having in place a robust and reliable test and protect system, and that is exactly what we have put in place. Over the weeks to come, we will assure ourselves that that system is working as robustly as it needs to. I say to parents who are watching—they are the most important people of all, next to the young people, of course—that that has my total commitment.

I sincerely say to members across the chamber that anybody in the chamber who suggests that these issues are simple is perhaps showing that they are not interested in sufficiently understanding them. We must proceed cautiously and carefully, and we must do nothing that compromises the safety of our young people and the safety of the country overall.

I will continue to operate each and every day in a way that focuses not on the politics of these issues but on my responsibility to get the country through this crisis as safely as I possibly can.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

France, Germany, Denmark and Ireland are moving heaven and earth; the Scottish Government is not. If alternatives have to be found, let us turn to them. If it does not prove possible to open schools fully in August, the Government needs to be far more creative than it has been so far. It needs to start with an open mind and to be open to radical proposals. Parents are now suggesting ideas, and we need the Government to be open to those ideas, too.

Let me take two ideas. First, will the Scottish Government commit to contacting all newly qualified teachers and supply teachers to boost teacher numbers, and will it intervene if any council seeks to reduce teacher numbers or cancel any probationary teacher opportunities? Secondly, will the Government state clearly today that it will support local councils with the additional funding that they require so that buildings—both public and private—where children could spend some of the week being taught can be made available?

The First Minister

I will address all those issues directly. The point about other countries is an important one, and we will be looking to learn from other countries, as we have been doing. Our international council of education advisers has a critical role to play in that work, as does the Covid-19 advisory group.

Jackson Carlaw mentioned a number of countries. He will find that, in many of those countries, if not all of them, children are not back to school full time yet. Very few countries in the world operate completely normal school education. I was reading a piece yesterday about Korea, where the test and trace capacity has been lauded as one of the best in the world, but the Koreans still have children in school only part time. I do not say that because that is my objective or because I want it; I say that to underline the point that all countries everywhere are grappling with the issues that we are grappling with.

The approach that we have decided that we must have in place as a contingency, with blended learning, is exactly what the United Kingdom Government is doing for England and what the Welsh Government is doing for Wales. These are not straightforward issues. In the first strand, if we have to have a blended model of education for a period—which I hope would be as short as possible—I absolutely give the commitment that, if that involves additional resources to maximise school time, the Government will step in.

We expect—as I would think everybody expects—councils to be creative and innovative in how they use the resources that they have. We will look into additional teaching capacity, whether it comes from retired teachers or other sources that we can get that capacity from. We will scrutinise those plans—as the Deputy First Minister and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education are doing—to ensure that, if we have to have a model of education that is less than full time for safety reasons, for any period of time, we absolutely maximise that, and that we take steps to provide additional support to parents and young people for the periods that they spend out of school.

These are difficult issues. Every issue that we are dealing with in tackling the virus is complex; none of them is straightforward. We must have safety at the heart of everything that we do, but we will also bring to bear creative thinking and solutions.

That was done in hospitals, but my last point—I see the Presiding Officer understandably looking at me impatiently—is for people who make simplistic comparisons with what we did in the health service. Yes, we created the NHS Louisa Jordan, but anybody who thinks that there has not also been unavoidable significant disruption in the health service in dealing with the crisis is not looking closely enough at the issues.

These are not ideal circumstances for any of us, but we will continue to navigate the country through them as best we can, with the interests of everybody very much at the heart of that.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

The country is looking at the First Minister impatiently—and, to use her word, “understandably”. There have been soft words, matched by a record of non-delivery, with months of dithering on education. Matthew Eastwood, a parent of two young children in Edinburgh, has put it better than any of us can. Writing to MSPs this week, he said:

“Whilst careers may be furloughed, childhood cannot.”

I agree: we must not put a price tag on our children’s future.

So far, we have seen half-measures and buck passing, and parents are rightly furious. I ask the First Minister for a commitment today: will she promise to commit the funds that are required, whatever it takes, to underpin a national endeavour to help councils get schools back in place and to give this generation of children the start in life that they deserve?

The First Minister

If Jackson Carlaw was remotely interested in my answers or their substance, he would have heard me give that commitment in my previous answer. I do not put a price tag on the education of children; equally, I will not act recklessly to put the lives of children, teachers or the wider community at risk. I will continue to work through these issues in the way in which the public would expect me to.

What I will not do, and what we have not had to do, is cancel plans to bring schools back this month because we had not thought through and worked through the practicalities and difficult issues, as the UK Government had to do just last week. We will continue to work through difficult issues.

I say to Jackson Carlaw that I have been tested by this, and, as First Minister, I will continue to be enormously tested by this, and people will make their own judgments on how and if I rise to that. I think that Opposition politicians are tested by this as well. The approach that Jackson Carlaw is taking perhaps reveals more about him and his party—their character and ability—than it does about me. I am not sure that people who look at that now will see a particularly appealing picture.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

2. Two days ago, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, Bruce Adamson, declared:

“The State has an obligation to ensure that children can access their human right to education.”

He went on:

“This is an education emergency and resources must be moved by”

the Scottish Government

“if necessary.”

He is right; we are in an education emergency. Children have a right to education, so we need to pull out all the stops to make sure that our children return to school safely and full time as soon as possible. What additional resources will the First Minister give councils to make that happen?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We are in a health emergency right now that has caused an economic emergency and it has created an education emergency. We have to tackle them all simultaneously, which is what the Government seeks to do. I agree with t

he Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland

young people have a basic human right to

education, but they also have a basic human right not to be put at risk of a deadly virus and we have to make sure that we do not inadvertently do that.

Thankfully, most of the evidence so far suggests that children may be less susceptible to this virus, but the evidence is not conclusive. This is a virus that we still know far too little about, because it has not yet been around for long enough. We also know that a tiny minority of children—so far, and I hope that it will stay like that—may suffer an inflammatory disease complication, Kawasaki disease, so we cannot play fast and loose with the safety of children. I hope and expect that no one across the chamber would argue that we ever should do that.

We have already given councils significant additional resources and we are working with them now to look at the plans that they can put in place for blended learning, if that is what is required. We will then scrutinise those plans and, if they have to go further, we will have a conversation with councils about the resources that are required. That is the proper way to go about those things. We have also asked for Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education to have a role in scrutiny as well.

The other strand of work is to look at whether we can get the virus levels low enough and then rely on test and protect, and perhaps other hygiene measures in schools, to allow a full-time return in which children can operate normally. Those issues are all really important but they are not simple or straightforward—no aspect of this virus is. I will continue to get on with the hard work of trying to get through them and to steer the best course through them, working with those with whom we need to work. That is my responsibility as First Minister, frankly, and it is one that I will continue to focus on.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

It is also the First Minister’s responsibility to give local councils the resources that they need to restart our education system. Scotland’s teachers, parents and young people also want clarity, and this week they have had nothing but mixed messages. Anxious parents are writing to me about the impact that schools being closed is having on their children and the impact that the Government’s mixed messages are having as well.

One mum told me:

“it’s just adding more stress to an already stressful situation”.

It is not just parents. A survey of headteachers and deputy headteachers by the Educational Institute of Scotland found that more than 90 per cent needed

“greater clarity over how the next academic year of teaching will be delivered.”

Instead of clarity, we have seen the First Minister contradict her deputy, contradict her advisers and then contradict herself. That is not clarity; it is chaos.

The First Minister produced a four-phase route map for opening up the economy. Why can she not publish a detailed route map and timetable for a return to full-time, face-to-face schooling? Will she provide the national leadership and the resources that our councils need to give parents, teachers and pupils the clarity that they demand and deserve to get their lives back on track?

The First Minister

On the day that we published the four-phase route map for getting the whole country, not just the economy, out of lockdown, we also published the report of the education recovery group that looked at an education route map. We are now working with councils to implement that plan, which was agreed—not imposed by the Government—through the recovery group by the Government, councils, education trade unions and parents organisations. That is the plan that we are now operationalising with councils in case we need that contingency for blended learning. It is a similar approach to the one that is being taken in other parts of the UK.

We will work with councils to make sure that the resources are there to maximise the time that children spend in school if that approach is necessary. However, we are also looking at whether it is safe to take another approach that gets children back into school normally. It is not about an unwillingness to make the resources available; it is about making sure we take an approach to schooling that keeps children safe as well as maximising the quality of their educational experience. Both those objectives are vital as we move through this next phase.

If we want get back to normality in education, the economy and all other aspects of our lives, we need to take a careful approach to coming out of lockdown. When I stand up here tomorrow to set out our next steps, those who want normality in our schools but also say that we should go quicker on coming out of lockdown will have a fundamental contradiction at the heart of their argument. Let us work our way through this—I mean that absolutely genuinely—but let us be consistent in the arguments that we are making. Our first priority is to beat this virus so that we can bring the country back to normality safely. Anybody who argues simplistically that there is some kind of magic shortcut to that is not putting the interests of this country first.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I am not asking for a shortcut. I am simply asking for a route map. All that the Government has produced so far is a starting point for blended learning. It is not a way back to full-time schooling.

Children have already been failed by the Government’s response to their educational needs during this crisis. Indeed, as many as 62 per cent of parents who took part in a question-and-answer session with the education secretary last night said that their children have had no access to online lessons while schools have been closed. The one additional resource that the Government promised was 25,000 laptops for those children who need them most for home learning. Four weeks on, not one single device has been issued.

We have one of the world’s worst records on tackling Covid-19, so we should be making sure that we have one of the world’s best records on supporting our children as we come out of it. Parents across Scotland are crying out for a clear plan to get their children back into the classroom. One parent told us that there seems to be a lack of ambition and investment in overcoming the challenges.

At the start of the crisis, the First Minister rightly channelled resources into the national health service. The NHS Louisa Jordan was created and ready to take patients in three weeks. New equipment was brought into hospitals right across Scotland. Where is the commitment? Where is the energy? Where is the drive? Where is the conviction? Where is the national plan and the national leadership? Where is the ambition to tackle this schools crisis with the same urgency, to pull out all the stops, to make the resources available, to get our schools safely reopened and to uphold our children’s right to an education?

The First Minister

The commitment is there. It has been repeated several times today, but I am happy to repeat it again. However, in reality, that involves putting in place the plans and doing the hard work to turn the ambition into reality, which is the process that we are going through right now.

My commitment to parents and to young people is as it always has been—to get normality back into education, as we want to get it into every aspect of our lives, as quickly as possible but as safely as possible. I will not at any stage of this try to underplay or to oversimplify complex issues that the entire world is trying to grapple its way through right now.

I absolutely recognise the stresses, strains and anxieties of parents who are home schooling while trying to juggle work commitments right now. We will continue—we have got more to do—to support parents for as long as such a situation continues. However, in point of fact, the Connect survey that was published on 4 June found an increase in the proportion of parents—68 per cent—who said that they have the support that they need for school work. We will continue to make the investments, whether that is through making available laptops or tablets, or through the resourcing of the plans to get children back to school as quickly as possible.

I welcome and relish the debate around this, which is right and proper. However, fundamentally, all of this involves hard graft. It is that hard graft that my colleagues and I in the Government, with our partners in councils, and with teachers and others, will continue to do, day in, day out.

Climate Targets

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

3. The Covid crisis is, clearly, the most immediate challenge for the Scottish Government, but it must not allow us to fail on the deeper, longer-term crisis that we also face. Sadly, for the second year in a row, the Scottish Government announced yesterday that it has missed its climate targets. It was not even a near miss—emissions for 2018 went up instead of down.

The Scottish Government never misses a chance to congratulate itself on setting world-leading targets, but it needs to face up to the reality that it has not been taking the steps that are necessary to meet those targets. Scotland can tackle the climate crisis and build a thriving renewable energy industry, developing the green jobs that we will need at the heart of our post-Covid economic recovery. However, the Scottish Trades Union Congress warned this week that the failure to support a Scottish renewable energy industry means that those jobs will not materialise, as turbines and other gear are simply imported.

When does the First Minister expect Scotland to finally start meeting its climate targets? What will the Government do to support the creation of jobs in the renewable energy industry in Scotland?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I expect us to meet our climate change targets on an on-going and increasing basis. There will be fluctuations year on year in what is a long-term challenge. The figures that were published this week, as well as the yearly increase that Patrick Harvie highlighted, which is regrettable, reflect different circumstances and different shifts in our energy mix reflecting those circumstances. Those figures also show the long-term 50 per cent reduction in our emissions, which gives us an incredibly strong foundation—probably one of the strongest in the world—to move towards our 2045 ambition of net zero, with very stretching targets along the way.

The investments that we already make in our economy, and in particular those that we will require to make to get our economy going again, as reflected in some of what Kate Forbes said in the chamber yesterday, will open up additional opportunities to invest in the energy transition as we progress towards net zero.

We work very hard on jobs in the renewables industry that come from some of the larger-scale renewables projects. Although we are using the powers that we have at our disposal, some of those powers, such as those around how contract for difference is structured, still lie at Westminster, which does not yet fully allow us to maximise that potential. That is simply a statement of fact. Nonetheless, we will continue to do everything that we can to ensure not only that we meet our environmental targets but that we reap the full economic benefit of that along the way.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

It seems scarcely credible for the First Minister to say that she expects us to meet our targets on an on-going basis when she knows that we are not doing so. Throughout this session of Parliament, the First Minister has—I believe genuinely—wanted Scotland to be world leading on this issue. However, she has left her Government with a track record in relation to which the best that she can claim is that it is not quite as bad as that of Boris Johnson’s Government.

Let us look at transport in isolation. That is the area in which we have seen the clearest long-term failure to reduce emissions. The Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform told the Parliament yesterday that we should not judge the Government’s track record on the basis of one year’s figures. However, the track record stretches back not just years but decades. Either the Government has not been trying to reduce transport emissions, or it has been trying but has been pursuing the wrong policies. Just this week, the resumption of short-haul flights between Glasgow and London has been allowed, despite there being plenty of rail capacity, which we should be using.

Last year, in Channel 4’s climate debate, the First Minister said, for the first time, that we need to “fly less”. Okay—how much lower than the pre-Covid level of aviation does the First Minister think that we should be aiming for, and what action will the Government take to prevent aviation regrowth from breaching a safe, sustainable level?

The First Minister

First, we support people to fly less, and to use alternatives, by continuing to invest in those alternatives and to make them more convenient and speedy. We will continue the work that is under way, but I also hope that the whole experience of the Covid crisis will help us to accelerate that.

I am not saying that we do not have a monumental amount of work still to do—far from it—but the entire world does, too. In the reduction of our emissions so far, Scotland is the second-best country in the world; we are second only to Sweden. That says to me that what we have been doing has been working, but we need to do more of it and we need to do it more sustainably.

We will continue to encourage behaviour change, and to invest in alternative energy—in alternative ways for people to travel, heat their homes, and live their lives. However, to say that Scotland does not have both a very good track record and a very strong foundation is, frankly, way wide of the mark.

Childcare

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

4. The Scottish Government is opening up more of the economy. Thousands of parents will be returning to work in businesses and shops in June and July. However, normal summer childcare—from childminders, private nurseries, family and friends—is still restricted by the Government. When schools open in August, children will be at home for up to four days a week.

It does not add up. The First Minister asks parents to go back to work—but who will look after the children? What are parents supposed to do?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

First, I say—not so much to members but to parents, who may be watching at home—that none of this is easy for parents. This is, and has been, incredibly difficult. I wish that I could make all those difficulties disappear overnight, but I cannot wave a magic wand. We have to work to a plan to allow us to suppress the virus, keep it suppressed, and bring all aspects of life back to normal with as much alignment as possible.

Willie Rennie’s question is legitimate and important. We have to bring the economy back carefully. Understandably, issues of economic challenge have encouraged people to think that we should do it more quickly. We have to continue to be cautious about that, and do things according to the plan that we set. Tomorrow, I will set out the next steps on that.

We want more key workers to have access to critical childcare hubs, which have been in place throughout the crisis, and to have those running throughout the summer so that there is more access—albeit that that will not be possible for everyone.

This week, we have published guidance for early learning and childcare, so that we can begin preparations to get early learning and childcare facilities back, in recognition that some of the issues that we talk about for school—in particular on physical distancing—are even more difficult in those settings.

Thirdly—and lastly—what Willie Rennie described, with regard to schools coming back on 11 August, is what we are working to change, so that children will be in school, even if that is under the contingency blended model, for more time than parents are perhaps looking at as a possibility right now; and to get back to a normal schooling week as quickly as we can.

All those bits of this complex jigsaw need to be in place, and we have to work methodically and very hard to get them in place as quickly, but also—I will keep on saying this—as safely as possible.

I understand that, as we see the numbers that we report every day going downwards, there is sometimes a tendency to think, “Let’s just get back to normal immediately.” However, the virus is dangerous, it is potentially deadly and it is still out there. Anybody in Scotland who doubts that just has to look at the fact that we still have people dying, but also at what China is grappling with again, what some parts of America are still grappling with and at what even some of the countries that are said to have done best in tackling the virus are still facing on almost a weekly basis.

We have to do this properly, we have to do it right and we have to do it with public health and safety at the forefront of our thinking.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The First Minister knows that I share her caution. I have been constructive throughout the pandemic. However, yesterday, the education secretary said that, if people criticise the policy, they are criticising the teachers. I think that that is a shameful insult to thousands of parents who have genuine concerns.

The problem for the First Minister is that this issue is coming up next week. People will be going back to work next week and they will need the support next week. The Government has put parents in an impossible position because they cannot choose between their job and their children. The Scottish Government ramped up national health service capacity and pumped billions of pounds into businesses to keep them alive, but on education, our children and their parents are being left behind.

Why does the First Minister not accept that, if she is asking parents to return to work, she has an obligation to work out who is going to care for their children?

The First Minister

I recognise that Willie Rennie has been constructive. I do not criticise anybody for discussing the issues or asking questions. All that I ask—and it is up to people to decide whether they want to proceed on this basis, which I think that Willie Rennie has generally done—is that people recognise that the issues are not straightforward.

It is not the Government that is putting parents in an impossible position. It is not any Government that is doing that. It is a global health pandemic that is putting people in an impossible position, and we have to try to mitigate that and help them work their way through it, which is exactly what we will seek to do.

We have to do that cautiously, because we cannot allow the virus to run away with us again and get a grip again; we also have to do it methodically and try to keep the pieces in line as far as possible, and that is what we will seek to do.

I will not say to any parent or teacher or anybody else across the country anything other than that this is incredibly difficult for them each and every day. I say to Willie Rennie that I do not think that it is correct to characterise it as something that is coming up next week. It is something that parents and others have been living with throughout the crisis because of the reality of the situation that we are dealing with.

As I said earlier, this is not about an unwillingness to make resources available; it is about using resources properly to get the country, including schools, back to normal in a way that is sensible and does not put the health of children or others at risk, and that is what we will continue to prioritise.

The Presiding Officer

There has been a lot of interest at various stages in asking supplementary questions. I remind members that I will take all the supplementaries after question 7, which is Monica Lennon’s question.

Ferry Tickets (Island Residents)

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

5. To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update for island residents who wish to book ferry tickets. (S5F-04228)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We are working with ferry operators to identify measures to ensure passenger and crew safety when travelling, while observing 2m distancing on vessels. Capacity will obviously be reduced by the measures, but we are putting in place plans to manage that. That work includes consideration of how the booking systems of CalMac Ferries and NorthLink Ferries might be used to help to manage demand. Further details will be available in the transport transition plan and from the operators, as we move through the phases of easing lockdown.

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

As the First Minister is aware, many islanders have not seen family members on the mainland since March. They have strongly supported the travel restrictions, but are now anxious to know that they will, whenever it is considered safe to change the current travel advice about ferries, have the opportunity to book what will be a very limited supply of ferry tickets, perhaps on a priority basis. Can the Government take steps to avoid new pressures on reduced services and capacity meaning that islanders do not get to see their families until after any tourist season is over?

The First Minister

I fully understand how important it is that islanders be able to access the lifeline ferry services on which, of course, they depend for getting to and from the mainland—in particular, to see their families. They rightly want to enjoy the same freedoms that others will be able to start enjoying as we ease out of lockdown. Like all aspects of the situation, that requires careful consideration to make sure that people can move safely and without risk to themselves and others.

There are practical considerations about safety that mean that capacity will be reduced by the measures that must be in place, which must be managed to ensure that islanders are not disadvantaged. That is a key consideration that CalMac, Transport Scotland and the Minister for Energy, Connectivity and the Islands, Paul Wheelhouse, are looking at.

Crucially, there is, and will continue to be, on-going engagement with island communities to determine the best way forward. The involvement of people who actually live on our islands, including Alasdair Allan and his constituents, is absolutely key.

People with Dementia (Lockdown)

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

6. To ask the First Minister what consideration the Scottish Government has given to the impact of lockdown restrictions on people with dementia. (S5F-04233)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Our route map recognises that the disruption to normal routines and connections, and the physical constraints of staying indoors, can and do have a profound impact on people with dementia, leading to feelings of loneliness, lethargy, stress, anxiety or depression.

That is why in phase 1 we are already planning and implementing the safe gradual resumption of much-needed access to respite and day care to support unpaid carers and families.

Changes to the care home sector on restricted visiting and a pause on normal activities and routines to protect residents, staff and visitors have had a significant impact on the wellbeing of residents and their loved ones. We already enable families to visit loved ones in their final days and in other exceptional circumstances, and we are developing plans for a phased return to visiting, when it is clinically safe to do so.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

My question was prompted by a friend of mine, who called me on Monday to say that, sadly, he had lost his mother a couple of months ago, which has been compounded by the fact that his father is in a care home suffering from dementia and has yet to be told that his wife has died. My friend wants to be able to tell his father that face to face.

My friend said that he is not only saddened by the loss of his mother, but that the sadness is compounded by the fact that his father’s dementia is accelerating because of lack of contact with the family. When the First Minister makes her statement tomorrow, will she consider giving clear guidance to care homes and families on visiting, in order to ensure that such situations are rectified?

The First Minister

Yes—we will consider the guidance and how it develops at every stage of the route map. As I said in my earlier answer, visiting is permitted in end-of-life situations and in other exceptional circumstances. It might well be that the very distressing circumstances that Brian Whittle has recounted are such exceptional circumstances. It is entirely up to him and his constituent, but if he wants to pass on details, we could look into whether visiting, in those circumstances, is now possible, even without further developments.

That is an example of the many difficult aspects of dealing with the crisis. The people who have been most at risk—people in care homes—are also the people who have had to live under some of the most distressing restrictions, and have not had family visits, as they would normally. As with so much else, we want a return to normality in that as quickly as possible.

However, given what we have already seen unfolding in our care homes, everybody will understand that we are perhaps even more cautious here than we are in other areas. Work is under way, and a lot of thinking is going on into when and how normal visiting can be resumed in care homes. The decision must be based on the most careful consideration and thought.

On the specific case that Brian Whittle mentioned, I and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport would be happy to look into it, if that would be helpful.

National Health Service (Restart of Services)

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

7. To ask the First Minister whether she will provide an update on the Scottish Government’s plans to restart NHS services, in light of reported concerns from patients who are experiencing delays to their treatment. (S5F-04239)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We recently published the framework for remobilising the health service. It sets out how health boards will follow national and local clinical advice in order safely and gradually to prioritise resumption of some paused services over the coming weeks and beyond, while retaining sufficient capacity to deal with Covid-19.

Boards have continued to protect key services throughout the pandemic, and are now gradually restarting services across key specialties including cardiology, urology, trauma and orthopaedics, as well as endoscopies and other diagnostic services. Patients will be seen on the basis of clinical need, and anyone who has been offered an outpatient or diagnostics appointment or a date for surgery should attend in order to ensure that they receive the treatment and care that they require.

That said, we know that coronavirus might well be with us for some time to come, so we will have to continue to balance restarting of services with the need to keep the virus under control, to continue to protect the national health service and to ensure that there is capacity to deal with any cases of the virus that need hospital or intensive-care treatment.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

We are all acutely aware of the need to manage the direct risks of Covid-19, as well as the harms that are caused by lockdown itself. My constituent Jeffrey Hills fears that he will lose his sight as a result of lockdown, because of delays to his cataract operation. Clearly, that outcome must be avoided, and could be avoided if testing and personal protective equipment were used to support Covid-free zones and safe resumption of NHS services.

Thousands of patients across Scotland are, like Mr Hills, waiting for treatment. They include cancer patients and people who are living with chronic pain, who have been telling Parliament how difficult the situation is for them.

All MSPs have been talking to health boards in recent weeks, and health boards have been stressing to us the importance of helping them to manage the public’s expectations. However, the framework has no dates attached. How can we help our constituents by giving them a bit of hope and confidence while, at the same time, managing the public’s expectations? What further clarity can we expect?

The First Minister

The resumption of services, within the constraints that I have outlined today, will be an on-going process. We want it to happen as quickly as possible; some of it is already happening, in the specialties that I spoke about.

We have Covid-free zones in hospitals; there is a proper and appropriate supply of PPE, and staff have clear guidance about its use. We are continuing, with the advice of our nosocomial advisory group, to consider increased use of regular testing in hospitals to assist with the process of reopening the health service.

As I said in response to a question last week, with particular regard to elective treatments, into which category cataract treatment falls, we are examining all resources, including the NHS Louisa Jordan hospital. That work will continue and will be accelerated to the extent that that is possible within the constraints that I have outlined.

Dates will always be one of the most difficult things in how we deal with the virus. I hope that, as the weeks go on, that will get easier. However, there are the uncertainties of the virus itself and, unfortunately, none of us has a crystal ball that can tell us how the situation will unfold. We must therefore assess the data and evidence in order to know what it is safe to do at the particular points when we must make decisions.

I will therefore say to patients who are awaiting treatment something that is similar to what I have said to parents and others who have been living with the difficulties of the situation for three months. We want to get them back into a normally functioning health service as quickly as possible, but that, like everything else, must be done with the imperative of safety absolutely at the forefront of our minds.

Civil Service Jobs (East Kilbride)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The First Minister is aware that my constituency of East Kilbride has already suffered a huge blow from the decision by the United Kingdom Government to move thousands of skilled Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs jobs from the town. Can she now press the Prime Minister for a guarantee that 600 jobs in vital international development work—work that is free from political interference—will remain at Abercrombie house in East Kilbride?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, we will continue to do that. The Prime Minister said yesterday that none of those jobs is at risk. I welcome that, but it is incumbent on all of us to hold the UK Government to that commitment on behalf of the hundreds of people who work in those jobs in East Kilbride.

More generally, I fundamentally disagree with the decision that was announced yesterday to merge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with the Department for International Development, because that puts foreign policy and commercial and political ambitions ahead of the needs of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable communities, at a time of global crisis. The move is regrettable, in the context in which the decision has been made.

Care Homes (Discharge from Hospital)

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

The

Edinburgh Evening News

reports today on the case of my constituent Mr Rodger Laing, who—against the wishes of his family, with his power of attorney overruled—was transferred from Midlothian community hospital to a care home. Mr Laing developed coronavirus and died from it on 27 May. His daughter, Gail, has said:

“I will never be able to forgive them for my dad, someone needs to be held accountable.”

As part of ministers’ Covid-19 response, 1,090 additional care home places were purchased and patients were moved into them. I have previously raised with the First Minister my concerns regarding the human rights of patients, but what investigation has the First Minister undertaken into how those patients and their families have been treated during the coronavirus outbreak?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I have made it clear that there will be a full inquiry into and investigation and exploration of all aspects of the crisis, including the decision making and the impact on our care homes. I have said before that decisions on discharge are taken carefully and on the basis of clinical risk assessments. At the outset of the crisis, at the start of March, some members in the chamber asked why more people whose discharge was delayed were not being discharged from hospital. It is important that we assess all of that in order that we have accountability and learn lessons for the future.

It sounds as though the case that Miles Briggs raises should not have happened in the way that it did. Discharge planning should involve families, clinicians and, when possible, the person who is being discharged. I am happy to look into the particulars of that case, to see whether we can get answers for the family but also whether lessons require to be learned.

Covid-19 Testing

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

A constituent contacted me about a neighbour who received a self-testing kit for Covid-19. They did the test, but nobody was available to pick it up. The neighbour contacted me, I spoke to NHS Highland and the test was uplifted three days later. I am not a scientist, but I figure that that test would have been useless by that time. What steps will the First Minister take to make sure that everybody, regardless of where they live, has access to testing that can give a result?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Again, without knowing the details, I cannot comment on the individual case, but the speed of testing is of huge importance. As we go forward with the test and protect strategy, we will want to report on the turnaround time for tests. When we launched test and protect, we said that we would take steps to improve—beyond the situation that exists now—local accessibility, which is particularly important in rural areas, and that work is on-going. Although home testing has and might have a growing part to play, I have always been sceptical about placing too much reliance on tests that are posted to people, who are required to send them back or need to have them picked up. It is better if someone who can do the test does it there and then. We will continue to strengthen the resilience and reliability of test and protect in all those aspects. However, if I had further details of that three-day wait for a test to be picked up, I would be happy to look into it.

Food (Support for Families)

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that families have support to access food over the summer holidays?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yesterday, we announced the continuation of free school meal entitlement over the summer and made it clear that we were giving councils additional money—£12.6 million—to pay for that extended provision. That is important at a time when we know that lots of families who were already struggling to make ends meet are finding things even harder. Many councils will be integrating that free school meal provision into their wider food support, so we have also made additional funding available to councils to help them with that wider provision.

Food poverty and insecurity should always shame a country as rich as ours. As far as we can, we must deal with it at source. While people live in food poverty, we all have a duty—which the Scottish Government takes seriously—to do everything that we can to help people to get the food that is a basic human right.

School Leavers (Support Services)

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

Bearing in mind the current emergency and its devastating effects on Education Scotland, can the First Minister give me a concrete assurance that the Scottish Government has provided local authorities in my West Scotland region with sufficient additional financial resources to ensure that the careers guidance and advisory support services in our schools will provide the most effective and very best support to our school leavers this term and next year?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that they have the resources that they need to get through the crisis. That applies not only to education but to all aspects of the challenges that we are facing. I have just talked about yesterday’s announcement of additional money for local authorities. We have provided local authorities with substantial additional resources so far, and those conversations will continue.

Aerospace and Aviation (Job Losses)

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Two weeks ago, I asked the First Minister to establish an aerospace and aviation task force, and I am grateful that a group has been established to respond to the situation at Rolls-Royce and to support aerospace jobs. However, with the loss of 160 Menzies Aviation jobs at Glasgow airport being announced and with National Car Parks workers also facing redundancy, does the First Minister agree that we also need a focus on aviation?

Specifically, what can be done to support our airports? Glasgow airport is one of the biggest employers in my region. The trade unions Unite and the GMB are warning that further job losses are to come, and they support the creation of an airport jobs task force. Will the Scottish Government create such a group?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I will consider any suggestions. As Neil Bibby says, he suggested that we create a cross-party task force to look specifically at aerospace in the light of the Rolls-Royce announcement, and we have taken that suggestion forward.

We must, however, guard against creating a plethora of different task forces, because we have to see this as an overall challenge and perhaps look at these things in a more joined-up, sectoral way. Early next week, we will have the report and recommendations from the advisory group on economic recovery, which is chaired by Benny Higgins, and we will reflect further in the light of those recommendations. At every level and in every way, there is a real commitment to do all that we can to support the economy as it recovers from the unprecedented challenge that it faces.

In addition to the cross-party approach on aerospace to which I have already referred, I spoke directly to the chief executive of Rolls-Royce a week or so ago. Work is also on-going between the Government and Rolls-Royce to look at what we can do in the short, medium and long terms by working together to preserve jobs and, I hope, a footprint for Rolls-Royce in Scotland. Those are all really important challenges for us.

We have to find the best way of catalysing the whole Parliament in a team Scotland approach. We need to have a discussion about whether that involves lots of different task forces or more joined-up strategic task forces, and it is clear that we are willing to involve other voices from across the chamber in that discussion.

Job Retention Scheme

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Has the First Minister had any discussions with the United Kingdom Government about extending the job retention scheme?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We are having on-going discussions with the UK Government about the extension of the job retention scheme. We are discussing whether that should be done on a general basis or whether it should be targeted at specific sectors that will have challenges for longer—I am thinking not exclusively but particularly about the tourism sector. That is essential. I saw some evidence that was published this morning about the number of companies that are expressing concern about the impact of a premature ending of the job retention scheme, and that evidence is growing.

Other countries have been used as examples to encourage the Scottish Government to do more, which is right and proper. Other countries—France, in particular—have already taken steps that the UK Government should follow, such as announcing the extension of such schemes for up to two years. We will continue to have—I hope—constructive discussions on the issue as we jointly support the economy through the difficult times that still lie ahead.

Social Distancing

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Keeping 3m apart is better for social distancing than keeping 2m apart, and 2m is better than 1m, but the World Health Organization says that a 1m distance is safe. Will the First Minister aim to change social distancing to 1m, as is recommended by the World Health Organization? The present distance will risk both lives and livelihoods if there is no plan to move to 1m at some point, as we move towards coming out of lockdown.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We must be careful that we do not mischaracterise what the WHO is saying. The WHO recommends keeping a minimum distance of 1m. However, it is also very clear that there is a continuum of risk and that there are often other factors that have to be taken into account. If we get agreement on that, it wi

ll be a useful starting point.

I do not have any fixation on a particular distance; I only want to keep people safe, and I want to do that in a way that is as conducive as possible to getting the economy moving again. I will always resist the tendency to see any of these issues in isolation, because they are not; therefore, we have to be very careful.

The advice that I have is that we should not move away from 2m right now. For all the talk about doing that, not one of the Governments in the UK has decided to move away from 2m right now. Yes, there is on-going consideration of whether there are particular circumstances, settings or mitigations that could be brought to bear to make something like that possible—I am not closed-minded about it. However, I will not be pushed into doing it in a way that looks at the issue in isolation or does it in an unsafe way.

At the heart of this is the fact that some of the settings—the economic locations—that, understandably, feel they would benefit the most from reducing the distance, both practically and economically, are also some of the locations that evidence tells us are higher-risk transmission areas or so-called “super spreader” areas.

It is a common refrain of mine, but none of these things are simple, straightforward or binary. It would be much easier if they were. We have to come to the right, balanced judgments, taking account all of the risks and benefits along the way. I will continue to try to do that on all aspects, because my fundamental duty is to do everything that I can to get this country through this crisis as safely as possible, and I will not be diverted from that.

Brexit Transition Period

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Many experts have warned that a second spike in coronavirus will be doubly disastrous if it is combined with a no-deal or low-deal Brexit. Can the First Minister update Parliament on what further representations have been made to the Westminster Government over an extension to the Brexit transition period?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

As recently as last week, both the Scottish and Welsh Governments made a plea to the United Kingdom Government to seek an extension to the Brexit transition period so that we take away any prospect of either a no-deal Brexit, or, as Joan McAlpine rightly said, some kind of low-scale deal that puts jobs and livelihoods at risk. Unfortunately, that appears to have been ignored so far.

We will keep making that case, although time is running out for common sense to prevail.

My views on Brexit are well known and I am not going to rehearse them all, but I think that Brexit is a bad idea and a no-deal Brexit is a catastrophic idea. In the best of times, anybody who contemplated that has serious questions to answer, but to contemplate it in the teeth of the crisis that we are confronted with because of Covid is unthinkable and deplorable. The UK Government will have very serious questions to answer, for a very long time, if they allow it to happen.

Scouts Scotland (Third Sector Resilience Fund)

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have two children who are scouts, and many members will have family connections or local associations with the scouting movement.

Today, Scouts Scotland has said that 47 per cent of its staff are at risk of redundancy, including those at the Fordell Firs outdoor centre in Fife, due to a projected loss of income of £1.5 million this year. Scouts Scotland has had no funding from the third sector resilience fund. What support can the Scottish Government offer to organisations such as Scouts Scotland that do so much excellent work with our young people, and will the criteria for the third sector resilience fund now be widened so that charities like Scouts Scotland can apply?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The scouts do a fantastic job, and I pay tribute to them for that.

Throughout the crisis we will try to be as expansive as we possibly can be—within the obvious limitations of resources that we face—and to help as many organisations, individuals and interests as possible. The finance secretary has already demonstrated a willingness to do that, with all the amendments and changes that have been made along the way.

I cannot stand here and say that we can flex any scheme to take account of and cater for absolutely everyone; I wish that I could do that, but I cannot. However, we will continue to try to do as much as we can to accommodate organisations that do great work and are seriously challenged by the crisis.

The main thing that we can do for scouts and for everybody else is to safely get us back to normal. That comes back to the key point that we must continue, as we are doing now, to suppress the virus. If we suppress it to the point at which we can keep it suppressed through test and protect, and if we can get agreements to deal with the potential of the virus coming into the country from elsewhere, we can all move back to much greater normality than we might have thought possible just a month or two ago.

That is the big challenge now; it is also the prize for continued patience during this understandably frustrating phase for everybody.

Brexit (Economic Impact)

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Professor Jim Gallagher recently told the Finance and Constitution Committee that

“adding further economic disruption on top of the economic disruption caused by the Covid crisis by driving towards a hard Brexit in the hope that it will somehow be disguised by the Covid crisis would be not just unwise but wicked.”—[

Official Report, Finance and Constitution Committee,

5 June 2020; c 19.]

Given what the First Minister has already said about that, and given that it looks as if that is where the Westminster Government is heading, will she tell us what progress has been made by the Scottish Government in preparing to offset the worst impacts of the likely outcome on businesses, jobs and the Scottish economy?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

That is a good question and one that we are addressing.

We should not be having to address it now. All of our efforts and energies should be focused on dealing with the Covid crisis and our recovery from that. It is inexplicable to me why any Government would seek to heap more economic pain on top of the economic pain that we already face.

We are having to restart our no-deal Brexit planning. In the next couple of weeks—the immediate date escapes me—the Cabinet will spend time looking again at those plans. Mike Russell is leading that work.

Every minute, hour and day that the Government has to spend on looking at how we mitigate the impact of Brexit, and particularly of a no-deal or bad deal Brexit, is a minute, hour and day that we are not spending focusing on the Covid crisis. I appeal again to the UK Government not to allow that madness to happen. Let us all focus on getting the country through the immediate health crisis and then on supporting the country to recover from the economic crisis that we face, without compounding that with the lunacy of Brexit.

Island Communities (Lockdown)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Each of our islands is unique. What criteria will be used to decide, and who will decide, when and how our islands come out of lockdown?

Community engagement has been discussed. How will that work along with the Scottish Government, ferry companies and relevant local authorities? With a reduced ferry service and hugely diminished capacity due to social distancing, what additional support will be provided to island businesses, given the huge fall in visitor numbers at the height of the summer tourist season?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The initiatives that we are announcing, and the further initiatives that we will put in place to help business, will give particular consideration to island and rural businesses, given the particular challenges that they face. That is true of the initiative that Kate Forbes announced yesterday, as it will be of future initiatives.

I want the whole country to come safely out of lockdown. The surveillance systems that we put in place to track Covid will make us aware of localised clusters or spikes. That will involve making data available to local authorities and to the public so that they can make informed judgments about any risks that they might take. It will also involve discussions between national and local Government about localised decisions that may fall to be taken. We are already discussing with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and with local authorities how that will work in practice.

The more we suppress the virus now, the sooner and more sustainably the whole country can emerge from what we have been living through.

Independent Ferry Operators (Business Support)

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In April, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Fair Work and Culture announced the creation of a £45 million ferry fund to support operators during the Covid crisis.

Although vital independent operators have received some support through other funding streams, it has been considerably less than the amount suggested by the economy secretary’s funding announcement.

Some independent firms, such as Pentland Ferries, have received indications that they will not be eligible for support from the fund at all. Why, when independent and subsidised operators are facing similar challenges, and are equally vital to the communities that they serve, have independent operators been treated so differently by the Scottish Government?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

It is important that there is fairness and transparency about how such funds are allocated. As I think that I said some weeks back during an exchange in the chamber, at times of crisis, when we have put funds in place very quickly, some of the normal due diligence has been done much more quickly, but the principle of fairness and transparency must still be there.

I do not have the details in front of me of the breakdown of the support for ferries, but I am happy to look at it. There will certainly have been no intention to treat particular operators unfairly, but if the rules on how the money is allocated have inadvertently done that, as with all such issues, we will be happy to look at whether better arrangements can be put in place.

13:30 Meeting suspended.

14:30 On resuming—

Provisional Outturn 2019-20

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next item of business is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Kate Forbes, on the provisional outturn for 2019-20. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions, please.

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

I welcome the opportunity to update the Parliament on the provisional budget outturn for the financial year 2019-20. The provisional outturn demonstrates, once again, that the Scottish Government has prudently and competently managed Scotland’s finances in challenging and uncertain times, taking into account Covid-19 expenditure up to 31 March.

We are, of course, still in the midst of a global pandemic, and I take the opportunity to thank everybody across Scotland for following the guidance as we start to emerge from lockdown. Our priority continues to be saving lives and reducing the spread of the virus. I also specifically thank members of the national health service, the emergency services and the thousands of carers across Scotland for the amazing work that they have done during this time.

The financial challenges of managing our response to the pandemic are immense, because this is an economic crisis as well as a health crisis. The global economic collapse has disrupted trade, financial markets and global supply chains on an unprecedented level. Today’s gross domestic product stats, alongside a reduction in business activity that is sharper than that during the 2008 financial crisis, demonstrate that. As in other nations across the world, the effects have been felt throughout our economy. International tourism has been hit hard by travel bans, supply chains have been disrupted and labour markets have been severely affected by physical distancing measures, absences and falling demand. That is before we add the already significant uncertainty caused by Brexit and the continued refusal of the United Kingdom Government to listen to reason and extend the transition period, to ensure that we do not add the calamity of a no-deal withdrawal to the huge economic challenges we now face as a result of Covid-19.

It is against that economic backdrop that we report our provisional outturn today. Although the path to recovery remains uncertain, the Scottish Government is implementing measures to ensure that, as a country, we are back on our feet as quickly and safely as possible.

The recently published 2020-21 summer budget revision shows that the Scottish Government has already committed significantly more than just the expected consequentials arising from additional UK Government spending to combating the effects of Covid-19, despite the financial restrictions under which we operate. We are committing more than £4 billion in response to the health, economic and social challenges created by Covid-19. That includes over £2.3 billion to support Scottish businesses, including £1.2 billion for business grants; more than £900 million in non-domestic rates reliefs; £620 million of health and social care funding; £350 million to support the welfare and wellbeing of our communities; more than £200 million in funding for rail; and more than £90 million to support bus operators across Scotland.

Those figures demonstrate the scale and breadth of our response to this unprecedented situation, and that is just a snapshot of the measures that we have taken so far in response to the challenges that are faced across Scotland. What is not in doubt is that significant budget challenges lie ahead; therefore, work is under way to ensure that Scottish Government resources are targeted at stimulating a safe, swift and sustainable recovery for our communities, public services and economy. We have very limited room for manoeuvre within our own budget, which is why I will continue to make the case to the UK Government for an increase in funding and flexibility to allow the Scottish Government to respond fully to the crisis.

I turn now to the 2019-20 provisional outturn. As members will know, under the current devolution settlement, the Scottish Parliament is not permitted to overspend its budget. Therefore, we have again controlled public expenditure to ensure that we live within the budget control limits that apply.

I can report that the provisional fiscal outturn for 2019-20 is £34.4 billion against a total fiscal budget of £34.6 billion, resulting in an overall cash underspend of £258 million. That £258 million is made up of £86 million of fiscal resource, which is for day-to-day spending; £76 million of fiscal capital; and £96 million of financial transactions, which, of course, can be used only for loans or equity investment in entities outside the public sector. Overall, the cash variance of £258 million represents less than 1 per cent of the total fiscal cash budget, with resource underspend—which, again, is for day-to-day spending—being less than 0.3 per cent of the resource budget.

It is important to note that there is no loss of spending power to the Scottish Government as a result of that underspend. Every penny is carried forward in full through the Scotland reserve, and, indeed, the majority has already been deployed through the 2020-21 budget. The resource underspend is marginally lower than the £100 million anticipated as being available to support the 2020-21 budget position. That is the inevitable result of our having to divert additional funding to support the earlier part of our response to the Covid-19 emergency. There were no Barnett consequentials to offset that additional spending, because the UK Government has supplied all consequentials, including those for 2019-20, in 2020-21. However, the shortfall is relatively small and I will pick that up as part of my management of the overall position, to ensure there is no impact on public service delivery.

We have also managed to achieve a capital underspend while prudently borrowing less than we originally budgeted for. In 2019-20 we borrowed £45 million less in capital than the originally planned £450 million and still funded all necessary expenditure while also achieving a sufficient capital underspend to fund 2020-21 budget commitments. The capital investment was, of course, also impacted by the pandemic. Decisions to borrow were made before the full impact on infrastructure projects became clear. The decrease in capital activities in March also resulted in a higher level of underspend than was previously anticipated. However, that is all carried forward through the Scotland reserve.

Finally, and in addition to the above, there is a provisional non-cash underspend of £130 million. The non-cash budget is used for technical accounting adjustments such as depreciation and impairments, and it cannot be used to fund public services. That represents no loss of spending power to the Scottish Government.

It is important to note that those outturn figures for 2019-20 remain provisional, as they are subject to an on-going audit process. Finalised figures will be reported as usual in the annual Scottish Government consolidated accounts and in a statement of total outturn for the financial year 2019-20 later this year.

To conclude—well within my allotted time, Presiding Officer—the provisional outturn demonstrates that the Scottish Government has spent more than 99 per cent of our budget in 2019-20 on the delivery of public services and our support for the economy. The cash underspend of less than 1 per cent of that budget is retained in full by the Scottish Government and will be used in its entirety to fund 2020-21 spending priorities.

I commend today’s figures to Parliament.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in her statement. I will allow around 20 minutes for that.

Members who want to ask a question should press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Donald Cameron is joining us remotely.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the finance secretary for advance sight of her statement, which is, of course, presented against the backdrop of the current pandemic, and I endorse her comments in thanking our key workers in the NHS, the emergency services and the care sector.

Some budget challenges already existed prior to the pandemic, not least in relation to the significant funds required for income tax reconciliations in the coming years—£270 million for this year and more than £500 million next year. That is before we get to the financial and, indeed, fiscal implications of the virus, which we debated only yesterday, when we considered the summer revisions to this year’s budget.

I note that the underspend remains, at £258 million, a significant sum. It is a huge figure on any view. I also note that the Scottish Government borrowed £45 million less than planned in 2019-20 and that it is not, therefore, using its existing borrowing powers to the full. With that in mind, why is the cabinet secretary demanding further borrowing powers at the very moment when her Government is not only underspending to the tune of £258 million but is not even spending to the borrowing capacity that it already has?

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

I thank Donald Cameron for that question. It is well documented that, by law, we cannot overspend our budget, so we must prudently balance it throughout the year.

The underspend that he referenced is less than 0.3 per cent of the resource budget. There is no loss of spending power, and, as he will welcome, we can use the money this year to mitigate Covid. I have repeatedly made it clear that I am looking for revenue borrowing powers. We have existing borrowing powers for capital; as I said in my statement, that is partly due to the impact of Covid in March. Some construction activity had to be suspended in March, and it stands to reason that that would have an impact on the amount of capital that we utilised.

With regard to borrowing powers, he makes the point for me. He referenced income tax, but, of course, the reconciliation that he talked about is born of forecast error, not Government decisions. The ability to borrow to cover that forecast error is limited to £300 million, and we have used some of that borrowing to cover our reconciliations this year in order that the maximum spending power is available to invest in people, communities and businesses. However, next year, we face a provisional £550 million reconciliation, with borrowing limited to only £300 million, which demonstrates that the existing borrowing powers are not sufficient.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I echo the cabinet secretary’s thanks to all key workers during this pandemic.

I have three questions for her. First, the overall cash underspend is £258 million, which is carried forward to this financial year. Will the cabinet secretary use some of that money to fund the return to school of children across the country? Secondly, last year, there was a shortfall in expected income from the land and buildings transaction tax and the Scottish landfill tax, but there is likely to be a greater variance this year. What order of magnitude does she think that it will be, and will it be covered by her remaining borrowing from the Scotland reserve? Thirdly, the Scottish Government has overestimated the income tax take for the past three years, resulting in a £1 billion black hole in the finances, which needs to be repaid. As she rightly said, £550 million of that needs to be repaid this year.

Given the likely further decline of income tax revenues because of Covid-19, what specific plans does she have to fill that even bigger black hole in the future?

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

The cash underspend in resource is about £86 million, and we are working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to understand what the costs might be of the return to work. Clearly, all the money that is available will be deployed to meet our Covid-related needs this year. As I have already mentioned, we face an extremely challenging budget situation this year.

With regard to LBTT, I assume that Jackie Baillie welcomes the fact that, in total, the fully devolved taxes raised more revenue in 2019-20 than in any previous year. Clearly, this year, there will be a hit. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has already published LBTT figures for the first quarter, and I anticipate the commission updating those figures as the data becomes available.

With regard to the last point, on reconciliations, she is right to identify the challenge that we face next year. That is partly the reason why I was grateful that all parties—bar the Tories—backed my calls to the UK Government for additional flexibilities and powers to look at how we spread that reconciliation over a longer period. She will appreciate that using borrowing powers to cover the reconciliation means that we are not taking away from day-to-day spending on education or the NHS. Every Government around the world borrows for anticipated reconciliation due to forecast errors, which, by their nature, occur in every Government’s day-to-day budget management. I hope to ensure that we have additional flexibilities to cover that reconciliation. Perhaps we can even ensure that the reconciliation is dealt with over a longer period than we are currently allowed.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to open questions. A lot of members want to ask questions, so short questions and answers would be appreciated.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I join others in paying tribute to the people who have been keeping our emergency services and public services working in these times.

I am grateful for receiving an advance copy of the cabinet secretary’s statement, which mentions that £90 million is being allocated to bus operators in Scotland. Given that we do not yet know for how long it will be necessary to have reduced capacity in the bus industry and what that will do to the viability of bus services, given that we do not yet know how long it will take for public confidence in using buses to return, and in light of yesterday’s statement in the chamber by the cabinet secretary’s colleague that confirmed that free bus travel for under-19s remains a Government policy commitment, when does the cabinet secretary anticipate being able to answer some of the fundamental questions about the delivery of such services and the impact that that will have on the Scottish budget?

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

In our route map, we appreciate that transport, whether in relation to the economy or schools, has to be a key part of the easing out of lockdown. I am in active discussions with my colleague Michael Matheson about how we fund transport needs, particularly given that bus services will have to adopt social distancing practices. Patrick Harvie will have noted yesterday that money was allocated in my return-to-work capital stimulus package to retrofit buses, in order to ensure that they can adopt social distancing practices.

I still believe that providing free bus services to under-19s is a good policy that I want to adopt in Scotland. Given the Covid crisis that we face, Patrick Harvie will appreciate that some policies have had to slip slightly, but that does not take away from our commitment. Over the coming months, as we try to get the economy and schools back up and running, we will return to some of the issues that have been on hold as part of a new way of thinking and new forms of Government intervention in our transport system.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am doubtful that a £76 million capital underspend was substantially because of the lockdown, given that it impacted on only two weeks of the financial year. Last year, the biggest underspend was in transport; this year, it is in transport again. That comes a day after the Government announced that its climate change targets were missed. What will the finance secretary do to get the transport budget effectively delivered to support cycling and walking projects, so that it is not contributing only to future underspends?

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

Clearly, there were a number of other delays. There was not a slight capital underspend only in transport; there was a slight underspend in health and across budget portfolios. This year, we are probably looking at a slight capital underspend, which is why, yesterday, I was able to announce the £230 million return-to-work scheme. There is substantial investment in transport through that capital stimulus, and we will continue to ensure that any capital underspends that emerge this year, because of delays to construction, will be reinvested in ensuring that our economy gets back up and running and that we reposition our economy, as all members have identified, so that it grows in a sustainable and fairer way. That includes ensuring that everybody has access to public transport.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

Every year during this statement, Opposition MSPs criticise the Government for the slightest budgetary underspends. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that it is precisely that approach by the Government that has helped it to support key industries and sectors during the coronavirus crisis?

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

As I have said—I will say it again, for the benefit of everybody—under the current devolution settlement, the Scottish Parliament is not allowed to overspend. Attempting to spend the exact amount that is contained in the budget carries a significant risk of reaching the Treasury’s budget cap.

I hope that members welcome how low the underspend is, because of prudent management of the budget. That has enabled us to maximise our response to the coronavirus pandemic, which has included the provision of more than £50 million during March 2020 in support of key industries and sectors, such as general practitioners, prescriptions and the rail franchise. We know that this year is a challenging year for the budget, so it is quite right that we are able to use some of the underspend from last year, through the reserve, to reinvest during the current crisis.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

I refer to table 4 of the accompanying notes. We will always welcome an underspend when it is low in individual portfolios. However, can the finance secretary explain the underspend of £63 million in communities and local government at a time when local authorities are crying out for more funding?

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

I have already identified that that underspend is extremely low, and that it is because of prudent management. We have tried to bring in budgets as close to their forecasted budget as possible.

Inevitably, there is sometimes a little bit of slippage; on that particular portfolio, it relates partly to resource and partly to capital. For example, there has been a delay to some of the city deals and also some delay to transport. When Covid—which is one reason, not the only reason—had an impact, toward the end of the year, it meant that there was a reduced and small underspend.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

It was reported on 12 June that leaked treasury documents have suggested that UK borrowing will reach £340 billion and quantitative easing will reach £645 billion this year. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that puts into perspective the supposedly generous £10 billion that was committed to Scotland, and that it is now time for UK ministers to ensure that Scotland has the resources that are needed to deal with a pandemic and its aftermath?

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

It shows some of the hypocrisy, as although the UK Government has reprioritised its own budget to invest in Scotland, clearly most—if not all—of the funding for the furlough scheme, self-employed income support and the consequentials that we have received have come from borrowing, because the UK Government can borrow. As Kenny Gibson said, borrowing is forecast to increase to £300 billion.

That is why we are making the point that our current powers and levers are insufficient to manage our own response to the range of issues that we face. Our resource borrowing limit is £1.75 billion and our capital borrowing limit is about £3 billion. That demonstrates why we need additional funding and flexibility to allow the Scottish Government to fully respond.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Given the underspend that was identified in the cabinet secretary’s statement, will she now commit to working with our local authorities to support them further? She should take into consideration the £145 million shortfall that they have already faced due to the pandemic, and the commitment that the First Minister made today to spend whatever is needed to get schools in Scotland going again.

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

I did not quite catch the first part of Sarah Boyack’s question, but I think that she asked about capital underspend.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

It was general underspend.

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

Okay, the question was about general underspend so it is very similar to Jackie Baillie’s question.

As I said, we have used the entirety of any underspend that has been put through the Scotland reserve this year to respond to Covid. The costs of Covid—which were in the summer budget revision—were already approximately £4 billion. The consequentials that we have received are several hundred million lower than that. Therefore, being able to use some of the resources from last year in this year’s response has been very helpful.

However, there are continued needs and there are shortfalls that we need to meet. We need to meet those either through additional consequentials from the UK Government or through the fiscal flexibilities and powers that would allow us to make up the shortfall ourselves.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Can the cabinet secretary give us any more information on how the current coronavirus crisis has affected the provisional budget outturn figures that she presented?

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

Today’s provisional outturn figures cover last year, and the coronavirus pandemic began only at the end of that year. Due to our prudent management of finances, we were able to absorb some of the additional costs that relate to the virus in March of the last financial year, without overspending on our budget.

Today’s figures include over £50 million that was spent in 2019-20 on the coronavirus response. However, that was spent mainly in the health and transport sectors and is in addition to the over £4 billion that we have allocated to coronavirus in this financial year.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The accompanying document shows that the underspend in the finance, economy and fair work portfolio was £158 million last year; that represents a substantial proportion of the total in that budget line. Can the finance secretary explain what makes up that figure and why it is so high?

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

I can probably provide a more helpful breakdown in full.

However, generally—this answer is similar to my answer to Alexander Burnett’s question—some of it will relate to capital that had to be rescheduled, particularly when it related to construction costs or loans and financial transactions that were planned for that financial year. There is a much lower resource figure. I will provide a breakdown of the specifics of what is within the economy portfolio later.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

The underspend is very small, if not tiny. Some people would call it worryingly low, given what lies ahead with Covid and Brexit. Is the cabinet secretary committed to continuing to take a prudent approach to Scotland’s finances?

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

Indeed we are. Given the limited fiscal levers that we have to accommodate any overspend, we must make sure that we control spending and that we meet the budget cap. That is what we have done this year, as we have every year, because of our prudent management and our competence with Scotland’s finances.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

If education is the Scottish Government’s number 1 priority, we would expect to see that reflected in the statement. It is regrettable that the finance secretary did not mention education once in her statement.

We cannot have an economic recovery without schools and childcare. With the lockdown generation facing upheaval in their education, will the finance secretary allocate the resources necessary to provide our children with the world-leading educational response that they need?

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

I see that Labour members are all asking the same very important question today about education.

I have already committed that we will use all the funding from last year’s reserve to meet our Covid costs. Some of those costs are the ones that Mr Bibby has identified in education, along with local government, transport and health. We are grappling with all those costs. We have ensured that we are using all the resources available to us, whether capital or revenue, to meet those costs and we will continue to do so.

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

Can the cabinet secretary provide further details of the estimated and actual spend on both the implementation and the delivery of Scotland’s social security powers? In doing so, will she say more about how that will inform us of the nature of the demand-led budget for the current financial year, given the Scottish Government’s lack of borrowing powers and the probably significant strain that will be placed on the social security budget by Covid-19?

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

Last year, £134.9 million was spent on implementing and operating our social security powers, against a budget of £149.1 million. Furthermore, £345.3 million was spent on social security assistance, against a budget of £346.8 million.

In response to the Covid crisis, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Security and Older People announced a reprioritisation of the social security programme to focus more on securing our front-line services and on delivering the benefits that we already have in place to support low-income families, carers and people facing bereavement. That will ensure that we are in as robust a position as possible to manage the impact of Covid-19 on benefit delivery.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes the questions on the 2019-20 provisional outturn statement. I thank everyone for their brevity.

Justice Sector Response, Recovery and Renewal

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next item of business is a statement by Humza Yousaf on justice sector response, recovery and renewal. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I will update the Parliament on how Scotland’s justice system has responded to the challenges posed by Covid-19 and on the next steps that must be taken to allow the system to recover and, importantly, to renew.

The past few months have been challenging and everyone working in the justice sector is and has been under immense pressure. I pay tribute to the adaptability, resilience and hard work of everyone, across all justice agencies and on the front-line, in their response to the Covid-19 outbreak. The dedication and commitment of those who make the wheels of justice turn have enabled Scotland’s justice system to respond quickly to the significant challenges posed by the Covid-19 outbreak.

I also thank the people of Scotland for largely adhering to the measures that are in place to keep everyone safe. However, Covid has not gone away and I urge everyone to continue to comply with the public health measures that are essential to help us curb, control and curtail the spread of this dangerous virus.

We are under no illusions when we consider the major impact that Covid has had on the justice system. I will highlight to members the key role of the national justice board in driving forward our recovery efforts as we move through each key phase of our four-phase lockdown exit road map. The justice board, engaging with victims, legal professionals and others, is overseeing the progress of activity to ensure the recovery, renewal and transformation of the justice system as we progress through and beyond our Covid-19 route map. The board recognises that significant progress was quickly made in response to the Covid-19 outbreak, and that that should be regarded as the foundation of the work still to be done.

Last week, the Lord Advocate and I co-chaired the victims task force, and heard from its members the importance that they attach to being involved in the development of the changes. Some clear anxieties were expressed by victims organisations, which we are determined to act on.

The approach recognises that transformation across the system has been accelerated to enable essential business to be conducted in the early stages of the Covid-19 outbreak; that substantial work is on-going to re-establish service provision—obviously, in line with public health guidance; and that additional extensive transformation will be required to enable the system to operate while living with the implications of Covid-19.

I turn to the detail of what is happening across various justice agencies and in particular policing and police enforcement. The police have been on the front line in the emergency, supporting one of the most effective tools that we have to control the spread of the disease, namely, physical distancing. There have been very good levels of compliance, because almost every individual knows that this is a collective endeavour. The public has been very supportive of the way in which the police have dealt with the pandemic. We know that from surveys of the Scottish Police Authority, from Police Scotland’s own surveys, and from the work of the independent advisory group on the policing of the Covid-19 regulations, which is chaired by John Scott QC. We know that all those surveys have come back showing very high levels of confidence in policing. In fact, the very existence of the independent advisory group is a symbol of the openness and accountability of our police service.

The recent policing of the black lives matter events shows that that approach is the right one. There was a clear balance between the need for sensitive policing and the imperative to keep people safe. The chief constable and I made plain our views that people should not attend the events and that they should find other ways of protesting. However, given that a significant number of people gathered in different parts of Scotland, Police Scotland’s approach reflected that balance very well. I believe that the past few months have confirmed beyond all doubt that Scotland is most effectively policed by a single, national service that is able to extend a commonsense and empathetic approach across the whole country.

The fundamentals of policing will not change during the coming months, although I would judge that the specific role of the police will inevitably change as we move further out of lockdown, when there will be more focus on business-as-usual and core policing duties. Considering the shameful scenes of disorder that Police Scotland had to deal with last Sunday, and the separate horrific incident that left two officers seriously injured, I hope that everyone, including all parties in the chamber, renews their appreciation of the incredible job that our police officers are doing to keep us safe.

I turn to court business. In a short number of weeks, Scotland’s courts have resumed many of their services. Virtual courts have been held in the Court of Session inner house, and High Court criminal appeals and remote hearings have been held in the outer house. Sheriff courts and mental health tribunals have also held remote hearings. New digital approaches have been introduced, allowing cases to be progressed across the sheriff civil courts and the all-Scotland personal injury court, and commissary proceedings have been restarted through remote working.

Protocols have been introduced in the courts to ensure physical distancing is maintained where attendance is required, with practice notes in place allowing remote representation, to minimise attendance in court by solicitors and Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service staff. Alongside the hard work and ingenuity of Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service staff and of the legal profession, many of the innovative approaches could be utilised only because of the new legislative provisions that we introduced, so it is also to Parliament’s credit that such measures could be put in place so quickly.

The Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service has announced a three-stage approach to restarting civil business, prioritising urgent business and tackling the backlog. As I am sure that members are aware, 15 hub sheriff courts are operating. They are dealing with custodies and have been helping to reduce court sitting times. All sheriff courts reopened on 2 June and have restarted processing local business this week. Last week, virtual summary trials were commenced in two locations, thereby supporting arrangements for summary trials to be conducted remotely in future.

The working group on restarting solemn trials, which is led by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, has made swift progress in identifying the steps needed for jury trials to commence in Edinburgh and Glasgow in July. Although that will involve very small numbers at first, the aim is to establish a sustainable approach that will allow as many trials as possible to progress as is consistent with maintaining a fair justice system, while protecting the health of all those involved.

The Scottish Prison Service has taken rapid and responsive action to ensure that physical distancing and public health protocols have been met, and has put in place a robust plan to manage Covid-19 and prevent its spread. I hope that members across the chamber will join me in thanking our hard-working prison officers and staff for the incredible job that they have done to prevent a Covid-19 crisis in our prisons. At the peak of the outbreak, approximately 100 individuals in Scottish prisons were self-isolating and a number of positive cases were confirmed. As of last night, there were no confirmed positive cases in Scottish prisons and just nine individuals were self-isolating across five establishments. That represents a significant achievement by our prison and healthcare staff. As we see lockdown measures starting to ease in our wider communities, the prison service is developing a phased approach to the easing of restrictions right across the estate, while ensuring the operational stability and safety and wellbeing of everyone in our prisons.

We continue to recognise the impact, especially on prisoners’ families, of the family contact restrictions that have had to be put in place in prisons. Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons has implemented a remote monitoring framework and inspection liaison visits to ensure oversight and monitoring of conditions in prisons. Nevertheless, we recognise very much the impact that the suspension of visits has had on families. The prison service has been working hard to introduce alternatives for maintaining vital family contact. Following the laying of amended prison rules in Parliament earlier this week, the first virtual visits by prisoners’ families and friends took place yesterday, for some of those in custody at Polmont, Cornton Vale and Shotts. We anticipate that virtual visits will be available in all our prisons by the end of the month.

As another way of enabling vital family contact during this difficult time, the use of restricted mobile phones is being introduced this week in Cornton Vale and Polmont and then over the next month or so across the entire estate—with the exception of HMP Kilmarnock, which is implementing an in-cell landline solution.

The prison service will ensure that implementation of virtual visits and the use of mobile phones is done in a way that is practical, safe and as swift as possible for those in custody, their families and those in the wider community.

As members will be aware, the level of our prison population was of particular concern before the pandemic. Since March, it has reduced by around 15 per cent, to under 7,000 prisoners—largely as a result of the downturn in court business, but aided by the early release arrangements that we put in place. Those arrangements were completed on schedule on 1 June and saw a total of 348 prisoners being released early.

However, in light of the continuing arrival of new remand prisoners, and the gradual reopening of the courts, we must continue to monitor the prison population and ensure that its reduction is not short lived. The key aims of the early release process—to take necessary and proportionate action to support the safe operation of prisons and to protect the health and wellbeing of those who live and work in them—very much remain our priority.

Presiding Officer, in the interests of brevity I will conclude my statement shortly. However, first, I wish to say that, during the lockdown, all of us will have had at the forefront of our minds the victims and survivors of domestic abuse. I reassure victims of all crimes that action will continue to be taken against perpetrators, who will continue to be brought to justice. However, it is worth noting that, in the calls that I have with the chief constable multiple times each week, I have been reassured by the commitment of Police Scotland and of support organisations to do all that they can to help those who are in difficult positions at home and who might suffer domestic abuse.

The Scottish Government also has a focus on cybercrime. We know that serious organised crime groups have been trying to exploit people during the pandemic, and we are making efforts to tackle that.

In conclusion, I assure the Parliament and the people of Scotland that the justice system is continuing to operate and to support our citizens through this time, as we navigate our way out of lockdown. No doubt members will join me in paying tribute to the hard work that has been undertaken by all in the justice system in supporting a safe, just and resilient Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues that were raised in his statement. I have absolutely no additional time and we are already running a bit late, so I doubt very much if we will get to all members who have questions. First, I call Liam Kerr.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will try to be quick, Presiding Officer. I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement and echo his thanks to the police, prison officers and all those whom he mentioned in his introductory remarks and throughout his statement.

I wish to explore three areas. First, it is vital that the courts are up and running again as soon as possible. Even before the pandemic, the number of cases that took more than six months to go from caution or charge to verdict was shocking. Of course steps had to be taken to protect public health, but victims should not have to wait any longer than necessary. Why has the cabinet secretary not announced today detailed plans to create additional court capacity to help the courts to catch up?

Secondly, I have a written answer from the Lord Advocate in which he confirms that the Scottish Police Federation’s call for those who cough or spit on police officers not to be released from custody before trial is a policy matter for the justice secretary rather than a matter for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Why will the cabinet secretary not take that decision?

Finally, the cabinet secretary, in his statement, repeated his long-standing aim to put more criminals on to historically underresourced community orders. I have seen data from local councils that shows that, understandably, face-to-face contact with offenders in the community has plummeted during the pandemic. What assurances has the cabinet secretary sought from councils that public safety has not been, and will not be, compromised by reduced monitoring?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank Liam Kerr for his questions. I note that he has taken a consistent interest in the matters that he raised, and I appreciate the tone in which he asked his questions.

With regard to the courts, detailed plans have been put forward—rightly—by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. A cursory glance at the SCTS website would show Liam Kerr the three-stage approach that I mentioned; if he has not seen it, I will ensure that the link is forwarded to him in due course.

Liam Kerr hits on an important point. Our existing court capacity, with physical distancing in place, will take us only so far, and there is simply no doubt that we need to go further if we want to make inroads into the backlog. I can confirm that radical and innovative solutions are being explored. For example, we are looking at commercial premises and whether we can set up temporary courts to deal with the backlog. Real, outside-the-box, radical, innovative thinking is being explored, but it is right that those decisions are taken by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, and the details are on the SCTS website.

On Liam Kerr’s second point, I have before me the written answer to his parliamentary question to which he referred, but my interpretation of it is slightly different from the one that he articulated.

The Lord Advocate makes it clear that

“The law on arrest and police custody”

has to be

“consistent with the requirements of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

I am certain that Liam Kerr would agree with that.

The Lord Advocate goes on to state:

“A proposal that all persons arrested for coughing or spitting on police officers during the COVID-19 pandemic should be automatically detained”—

this is the important bit—

“would not be consistent with this statutory framework.”—[

Written Answers

, 15 June 2020; S5W-29808.]

Liam Kerr forgot to mention that point, which is so important. I am sure that he is not suggesting that anybody, be it the Crown or anybody else, looks to go against the statutory framework. I think that that answers that question.

With regard to community orders, I will raise that question—as I often do—with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I have a regular engagement with Councillor Kelly Parry. We want to get community orders up and running as safely and swiftly as possible. That can be difficult in a group dynamic, given the nature of such orders, but I take on board Liam Kerr’s points around safety and I will raise those again with COSLA during our next conversation.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement, and I echo his comments in complimenting those in the police, prison and court sectors who continue to work in very difficult circumstances to keep people safe. As we emerge slowly from lockdown, it is essential that we keep our communities safe and protect people. To achieve that, we need clarity in public messages.

I have two questions for the cabinet secretary. First, what consultation has there been with Police Scotland ahead of the phase 2 announcement tomorrow to ensure that there is clarity about what is in guidance and what is in the law? Secondly, in relation to the restarting of jury trials, what provision is there for Covid-19 testing to give some assurance to those who will potentially be empanelled?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank James Kelly for the constructive manner in which he has raised those issues and the other issues that he has consistently raised relating to the justice sector for a number of weeks and months.

On James Kelly’s first question, I give him an absolute assurance that a detailed consultation has taken place with Police Scotland. That has happened at ministerial level. I speak regularly to the chief constable and to Deputy Chief Constable Malcolm Graham, who is in the lead on operation talla, and some of the other DCCs. There has been a ministerial relationship with the chief constable and the DCCs that has been focused on phase 2 for a number of weeks now. At official level, there has also been a lot of detailed discussion with Police Scotland. James Kelly is absolutely right that there should be consistency and alignment of message in relation to what is in guidance and what is in regulation.

As I think I referred to in my statement, as restrictions begin to ease, we will no doubt see the police revert more to core policing duties and the use of public order powers and so on, as opposed to the powers in the regulations. That is probably an obvious point.

The work on the restarting of jury trials is being led by Lady Dorrian, the Lord Justice Clerk, and she is advised by Public Health Scotland in that work. Therefore, I expect—indeed, I know this, because I raised the issue in my most recent conversation with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service—that the issue of testing is being actively explored when it comes to the resumption of jury trials. We have the capacity for that. James Kelly will understand that testing asymptomatic individuals gives an assurance only at that point in time, and jury trials can last for a number of days, if not more than a week. I give him an assurance that the question that he asks about testing is being actively explored.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We move to open questions. As I said, a lot of members want to ask questions.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

What is the cabinet secretary’s response to the 2018-19 Scottish crime and justice survey, which shows that, compared to a decade ago, people are now less likely to experience crime and feel safer in their communities?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

It is a very positive survey, and I urge members to have a look at it. The 2018-19 survey, which was carried out before the pandemic, involved 5,500 adults and shows some really positive trends. Over a decade, crime overall is down and violent crime has almost halved. Compared to a decade ago, people are now less likely to be victims of crime. One really interesting point—we do not yet know whether this is a trend or just an outlier—is that there seems to be no statistical difference between the likelihood of being a victim of crime for those in one of the most deprived areas in Scotland and the likelihood of that for those in any other area of Scotland.

The statistics are interesting. As members will imagine, there are also areas of concern, which relate to the reporting of crime. There is lots of good detail in the Scottish crime and justice survey, and I encourage members to look at it.

Maurice Corry (Conservative, West Scotland)

The cabinet secretary addressed in general terms in his statement support for victims of crime. Can he give specific details on the level of mental health support that is being given to victims of crime, particularly given that the current emergency has led to a protracted and anxious wait until the judicial process is fully up and running again?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

That is an important question. We have given additional funding to Victim Support Scotland, which is the national organisation that works with victims, Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland and to the ASSIST—advocacy, support, safety, information services together—project, which works specifically with survivors and victims of domestic abuse. As I referred to earlier, although home might be a safe haven for Maurice Corry and me and for others, that is not the case for everybody. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have given additional funding to those victims organisations. If we can do more, my door of course remains open to those organisations, and I have regular engagement with them.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The cabinet secretary is absolutely right to pay tribute to our police officers for keeping us safe. In April, the Scottish Police Federation raised concerns about the safety of the type 2 surgical masks that had been issued to police officers, but it was reassured that FFP3 masks would be delivered. Can the cabinet secretary update the chamber as to whether those masks were delivered and how many were issued to police officers?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The member will forgive me; I do not have the number of FFP3 masks that have been delivered. Certainly, no concerns have been raised with me about the masks in recent consultations and conversations with the Police Federation and directly with Police Scotland, but I am happy to look into that.

In relation to the type 2 surgical masks, the member will know that that issue has now been referred to the Health and Safety Executive. I will make a prejudgment on that: I have always been confident that Police Scotland has been aligned with the Health Protection Scotland’s public health guidance, but I will wait for HSE’s judgment in that regard.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

John Finnie joins us remotely.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I note the cabinet secretary’s comments on the prison estate and I thank the prison staff for their hard work.

The cabinet secretary may be aware that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland has written a very concerning letter to the Justice Committee, advising it that

“international human rights frameworks clearly prohibit ... solitary confinement for children, recognising the damaging effects it can have on physical and mental health.”

As the cabinet secretary may be aware, the commissioner understands that

“some children and young people in young offenders’ institutes are currently being confined in their cells for up to 23 hours a day”

and

“those who are showing symptoms of coronavirus are isolated in their cells for 24 hours a day.”

Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether that intolerable situation has occurred and, if so, whether it continues? Most important, how quickly will the Scottish Government remedy it?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

As of today, there should not be anyone self-isolating in our young offenders institutions. The numbers are low: nine people are self-isolating across five prisons, and none of those is a young offenders institution. It should not be the case that young people are self-isolating or are being held in solitary confinement for public health reasons—although there may be other reasons why that is the case.

I share the concerns expressed by John Finnie and the commissioner. However, despite the lockdown measures that are in place, a robust monitoring framework has been put forward by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons. I will look specifically at the detail of the issues that the commissioner has raised, but John Finnie will recognise that, in the early days of the pandemic, some extreme measures had to be taken that we would never think to implement in normal times. As a result of the extreme situation that we are dealing with, those measures had to be taken for no reason other than public health. I take his broader points on board and I will look at them in more detail.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Given that lockdown has led to many victims of domestic violence being exposed to an even greater risk, are there any plans to further roll out and expand the Caledonian programme and other such initiatives to tackle the scourge of domestic abuse?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Fulton MacGregor will know, because I have discussed it with him before, that additional funding from the Scottish Government is allowing the Caledonian project to be rolled out across even more local authorities. I am a big believer in the effects of that excellent programme and I would like to see it rolled out further. During the pandemic, work has been undertaken to see whether there is a version of the Caledonian programme that can be undertaken on a one-to-one basis—he will know that the programme is usually group based. This week, accreditation and sign-off are being sought for that one-to-one programme. I give the member the assurance that, if the programme can get that sign-off and if local authorities are interested in having that resource available to them, of course I will look at that with an open mind.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Liam McArthur joins us remotely.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I, too, pay tribute to everyone who is working across our justice system, in which services and systems have been radically reconfigured over recent weeks.

What action has the cabinet secretary taken since last week, when I raised Scottish Women’s Aid’s concerns about refuge capacity in view of an increase in requests coinciding with the pressures brought about by social distancing and difficulties in being able to move individuals on to more permanent homes?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The issue has been raised not just with the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning but with housing officials and in liaising directly with Scottish Women’s Aid. I had a conversation through our victims task force with Scottish Women’s Aid about the victims and survivors of domestic abuse.

I will get back to Liam McArthur—I know that he raised the issue with me last week—once the

Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning and I have had a further conversation about refuge space.

Members should be in no doubt whatsoever that, where there are issues to do with refuge space, we are collectively committed to tackling them.

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

The cabinet secretary will recall that I asked him on 21 April, which is almost two months ago, about the number of jury trials that could proceed. What is the timeline for clearing the backlog that has been building for months now and which will continue to build until resumption in mid-July?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Gordon Lindhurst knows that there are detailed plans under way and that there is a working group that is looking at that specific issue, which is led by the Lord Justice Clerk.

There are no easy answers. If there were a magic wand, a click of the fingers or a silver bullet that could be applied to the issue to deal with the backlog, it would have been found not only by us but by England and Wales and every other common-law jurisdiction, such as New Zealand, Australia and Canada. However, they have not found it. Everybody is dealing with and working through the issue, and everybody understands that, despite our best efforts, there will be a backlog that will have to be worked through.

There is no easy way for me to say this, but there is a backlog that will be difficult for the accused, witnesses and victims of crime. As I have already mentioned in my answer to Liam Kerr’s question, we will explore radical and bold solutions, whether that is setting up temporary courts to work through the backlog or asking retired judges and, indeed, sheriffs to come back on to the bench, for example. We will explore every possible avenue. However, if Gordon Lindhurst expects me to have a magic solution that no other country has managed to find which will give him a reassurance that the backlog will not be difficult to get through, I am afraid that I simply do not have that.

These are serious matters that are being given serious consideration across the legal profession, victims organisations and the Government, and I can give an assurance that there is not a day that goes by in which I am not in discussions about addressing that backlog.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary will know that the local delivery of justice is important for victims and witnesses and that it is also a practical consideration. He talked about the possibility of renting commercial premises for temporary courts to help to clear the backlog. I appreciate that this is a difficult matter, but can he indicate when we might see jury trials resuming in Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Again, that is work that is being taken forward by Lady Dorrian as part of the work of the working group on resuming jury trials. As Claire Baker will know, the plan is to resume jury trials in the High Court in Glasgow and Edinburgh first and foremost in July. There are different solutions for each of them. Some victims of crime from the region that Claire Baker represents may well be serviced by that. However, I have to be frank with members: a very small number of cases will begin in the initial phase, which is, of course, understandable. In the first instance, they will involve a small number of witnesses.

That work will continue. I can give an absolute assurance to Claire Baker, as I have to Gordon Lindhurst, that nobody wants to elongate the delay any further than it has to be elongated, and nobody wants to have victims in particular or the accused waiting any longer than they have to for a trial date. We will continue to work on this at the quickest pace that we can.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

My question is about virtual visits. Given the importance of family contact, what is being done to ensure that no families are excluded because of a lack of access to appropriate technology? I request that families in Ayrshire are able to access the service at Kilmarnock prison as soon as possible, please.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Ruth Maguire will be aware that Kilmarnock prison is one of two private prisons in Scotland. HMP Kilmarnock has decided not to introduce mobile phones; instead, it will develop its own in-cell telephony option, which will provide similar functionality in enabling contact with family and friends.

Ruth Maguire asked about virtual visits.

HMP Kilmarnock’s

bookings are scheduled to open on Monday 22 June, and visits will start on Thursday 25 June. I will ensure that the details of that are sent to Ruth Maguire.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes questions on the justice sector response, recovery and renewal. I apologise to Joan McAlpine and Alasdair Allan for being unable to accommodate their questions.

Mental Health (Transition and Recovery)

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

[

Interruption

.] Sorry, this is just like being at home, cleaning the bunker—although nobody knows what a bunker is, do they?

The next item of business is a statement by Clare Haughey on mental health: transition and recovery. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

The mental health impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic have brought new and significant challenges as we all continue to adapt to this unprecedented situation. Many of us will feel excitement and relief about the opportunity to move more freely outside our homes and to meet our friends and loved ones again. However, that may be accompanied by anxiety about the spread of infection.

As we work towards transition and recovery, we need to ensure that the importance of looking after our mental health is just as widely understood as the importance of protecting our physical health. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Government has taken significant action to help support the mental health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland. We have invested a total of £6 million of additional funding to support the population’s mental health.

We launched the national clear your head campaign in April. Through television, radio and online resources, we have shared practical tips on how people can look after their mental health and wellbeing. We have set in train a number of initiatives to increase the capacity of existing services, both now and in the future. For example, in March, I announced an additional £2.6 million of funding to increase the capacity of NHS 24’s mental health telephone and online services. We have invested a further £1 million to roll out the Distress Brief Intervention programme on a national basis. The programme provides an “ask once, get help fast” intervention for people in distress. We have made mental health support and advice available to parents and carers through Parent Club. We have provided £105,000 to support Young Scot to develop enhanced digital content and resources on mental wellbeing during Covid-19.

I can announce today that we are providing nearly £43,000 to Beat, the United Kingdom’s eating disorder charity, to support its online and telephone support services. That funding will enable Beat to reach 3,000 people with an eating disorder over the next 12 months.

We recognise that people with autism, together with their parents and carers, may find changes to routine particularly challenging, so we have provided an additional £200,000 for Scottish Autism and the National Autistic Society, enabling the expansion of their telephone helplines and online services.

We have also worked with the Scottish Commission for People with Learning Disabilities, which has provided excellent easy-read versions of all key Covid-19 messages over this critical time, ensuring that the advice is accessible to everyone.

We are indebted at this time to our amazing health and social care workforce. As part of our efforts to care for those who care for us, we have launched the national wellbeing hub, PRoMIS, to provide a range of practical support, both now and in the future. Working alongside boards and the workforce wellbeing champion network, we are keen to build on the support that the hub provides. In particular, we plan to offer a national listening service for people across the health and social care workforces. We are also developing services for those who may need more specialist support.

I take this opportunity to recognise once again the contribution of our workforce. They have gone above and beyond, every single day, and their contribution has been truly extraordinary.

We understand that Covid-19 will have long-lasting impacts well beyond the initial crisis response stage. As such, we will continue to build on the success of those actions to meet changing mental health need. As we move through the phases of recovery, we will anticipate on-going challenges. There will be an increased need to provide different support for newly emerging mental health issues, which will be on top of the typical demands on mental health services. An intensive response will be required, which will need to be flexible and innovative. That is why we have identified the remobilisation of mental health services as one of our top priorities.

We are working directly with national health service boards to ensure that people have access to the right services at the right time. Boards across Scotland must be able to meet demand in a safe, effective, sustainable and quality-focused way. Mental health services have continued to be provided throughout the pandemic, albeit with adjustments in timescales for delivery and to accommodate Covid-19 restrictions. Urgent and emergency cases continue to be prioritised.

We have worked closely with boards through the pandemic to ensure the integrity and quality of child and adolescent mental health services. It is vital that mental health remains a visible priority, particularly for our younger citizens.

We are undertaking specific work on the recovery of mental health services, including innovation in services and modelling future demand. That detail will inform a full recovery plan covering all boards and all phases of recovery over the coming weeks and months. To ensure that boards’ mobilisation plans are robust, we are also working directly with mental health leads to build a baseline of service provision, which includes detailed information about how services can be restarted safely. Where required, we will issue further guidance or directives to promote a consistent approach to remobilisation across Scotland.

During our engagement with boards, we have seen new evidence-led approaches across Scotland. The innovative use of technology has been a key feature, which we will be keen to learn from as services are redesigned to meet the needs of patients. There are also plenty of fantastic examples of local practice that we want to retain. For example, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has established mental health assessment centres to provide help and support for patients who are experiencing a mental health crisis and ensure that they receive a more tailored approach. That example of best practice has been taken up by boards across Scotland, and 17 mental health assessment services are now operational across the country.

Although services are a crucial part of the picture, our work must go wider and focus on the importance of mental wellbeing. The promotion of mental health at a population level will be central to the Scottish Government’s long-term response. Human rights, equalities, the importance of reducing stigma and a focus on recovery will be foundational principles.

Throughout the pandemic, we have worked closely with stakeholders to shape our approach and to determine our longer-term ambitions for mental health and wellbeing in Scotland. That engagement has helped us to understand the current and emerging needs that are results of the pandemic. Some are new challenges, such as support for people who are shielding, and some are existing issues that have been brought into even sharper focus over the past few months. An example is the relationship between poverty, inequality and mental health, which is at the forefront of our thinking.

Key to those challenges will be the development of the new community mental health and wellbeing services for five to 25-year-olds. In March, we allocated £2 million of funding to local authorities to plan new supports for mental health and emotional wellbeing. In addition, we will make up to £15 million available each year for the delivery of those services. Despite the difficulties that are posed by the pandemic, I am confident that local authorities and their partners can have those vital services in place this financial year.

As well as concentrating on mental health services and the importance of wellbeing, we also want to ensure that robust support is in place for people who experience distress. The Distress Brief Intervention programme is a prime example. Fast, accurate and individualised signposting to sources of advice and support is also needed.

In that changing landscape, our policy response will remain fluid and adaptable and will be led by emerging evidence. The Scottish Government has commissioned the University of Glasgow, in collaboration with the Samaritans and the Scottish Association for Mental Health, to undertake a Scottish mental health and wellbeing tracker study.

That study will track mental health participants for the next year, and provide a Scotland-specific insight into the impact of the pandemic and lockdown restrictions on the population.

We have also established the mental health research advisory group, which includes academics and public health experts from across Scotland. The group, chaired by Professor Andrew Gumley, is helping us to identify emerging research to guide our policy response.

In the next phase of our recovery from Covid-19, mental health will continue to be to the fore. That is why we are committed to ensuring that the good mental health and wellbeing of the people of Scotland is one of this Government’s top priorities. Covid-19 has illustrated more than ever why that matters so much. We remain determined that everyone is able to access safe, person-centred, equitable, efficient, timely and effective mental health support, should they need it. We will continue to engage with and inform Parliament as we develop our response.

I doubt that there is a single one of us who has not thought about our own mental health at some point over the past few months. In many ways, the pandemic has destigmatised, and shown us that it is okay not to feel okay. More people have been asking each other how they are doing. Those things really matter. The importance of good mental health is clear.

As we move into the next phase of recovery, there will be new challenges for us all to face, but we will face them together. There is no right emotional response to the national trauma that we have faced. Some of us have adapted quickly and will continue to do so. Some will find it more of a struggle, and that is okay. The community spirit and togetherness that has been shown every day across Scotland has been amazing. We must hold on to that.

The people of Scotland can be assured that mental health will continue to be an absolute priority for the Government. Thank you.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement. The latest waiting times figures show that fewer than two thirds of children and young people who are accessing CAMHS services were treated

within the Scottish Government’s 18-week target, but the number of children who are waiting for more than a year for mental health services increased by almost 300 by the end of March. It is clear that, before the crisis, our services were not delivering for our young people.

Will the minister agree to look at three key asks and report back to Parliament? The first is to establish mental wellbeing support resources for parents over the summer holidays. The second is to make available a peer-to-peer wellbeing support network in all secondary schools, hopefully when they return in August. The third is to develop new mental health training for teachers, not just mental health first aid.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I thank Mr Briggs for his question. I have said on many occasions that our position has been that long waits for mental health treatment are unacceptable and it is encouraging to see that more people are able to access psychological therapies compared to the same quarter last year in the statistics that he referenced. However, it is disappointing to see a drop in performance at this time.

Our investments have contributed to a substantial increase in the CAMHS and psychological therapies workforce. However, we recognise that the impact on performance has been slower and less comprehensive than we expect and require. We are keen to build on some of the learning that we have done during this time and to see how recent developments in the use of technology, for example, can help boards to address some of the longstanding issues around access and, crucially, quality of services.

Mr Briggs had three specific asks. If he will indulge me, I will write to him on them. It might also be helpful for him to know about some of the things that we have done that I have not mentioned already today. For example, the Solihull approach looks at relationships and child development and covers from the antenatal period right through to age 19. The Distress Brief Intervention programme is accessible nationwide for anyone who is over the age of 16. The Parent Club website provides advice and support for parents, carers and children on aspects of mental health.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement.

I was pleased to hear confirmation that there are now 17 emergency mental health assessment centres. That is welcome. I know that the Royal College of Emergency Medicine has recently endorsed their continued use in the future. Can the minister guarantee that the changes will be made permanent, as the NHS is remobilised?

Finally, I did not hear an awful lot in the statement directly about bereavement support. Constituents have been in touch with me who have suffered loss and trauma because of Covid-19, and who have struggled to find access to groups for support, although they know about the helplines. I wonder whether—perhaps after today—the minister and the Government could signpost people to support. If there is not yet enough specific information and advice for people who have suffered a loss because of Covid-19, could that be rolled out for the future?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Monica Lennon has raised the pertinent issue of bereavement support. Anyone who has been bereaved during the pandemic has had a bereavement like none that any of us has ever experienced, with access to the rituals and support that we would normally have being denied us. I send my sincere condolences to anyone who has been bereaved through Covid-19—as my family has, so I feel that I can say that with sincerity and empathy.

We have invested in the services that Cruse Bereavement Care can provide. I appreciate that it is currently difficult for people to access group sessions, which can be extremely powerful in supporting people. I hope that we will, as we progress through the pandemic, be able to look at more innovative ways of providing group therapy in the national health service and in third sector organisations.

I am delighted that we have so many emergency mental health centres up and running across the country. They provide a good service to people who are in mental health crises by giving them direct access to mental health professionals and directing them away from the less appropriate environment of accident and emergency departments in acute hospitals. I will certainly be working with health boards on how they plan to continue the services, and will encourage them to do so.

We will also look at all the innovative services that have been developed across mental health, of which there is quite a range. We will consider their value, the quality of care that they provide to patients, their outcomes and whether they are providing good-quality evidence-based services. We will encourage health boards to continue with those innovations.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Before I call Emma Harper, I remind members to press their request-to-speak button if they want to ask a question. I ask for succinct questions and, although I know that this is a very important and sensitive issue, succinct answers. I am trying to get everybody in.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Will the minister provide an update on what mental health services have been paused or stopped altogether during Covid-19, such as CAMHS physical attendance in Dumfries and Galloway? Will she also provide an outline of what impact that has had on the people who need the services?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Provision of mental health services has continued throughout the pandemic, albeit with adjustments to accommodate Covid-19 restrictions and to timescales for delivery. As I said earlier, urgent and emergency cases continue to be prioritised.

That said, certain aspects of service delivery have necessarily been paused over the period due to restrictions that have been imposed through Covid-19 related limitations, such as physical distancing. Those aspects include group work, day and respite services, assessment and review for dementia, autistic spectrum disorder and neurodevelopmental assessments, medication reviews for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and some inpatient detox services. Where that has happened, we have been assured by boards that efforts are being made to support patients and their families by other means—for example, through telephone contact or domiciliary visits, when they are essential.

Health boards are also working with each other and with the Scottish Government to find safe and effective ways to deliver group interventions—which I referenced in my answer to Monica Lennon—and neurological assessments remotely.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I know that the minister is aware of the huge contribution that the third sector makes in tackling mental ill health, through organisations that offer specific mental health interventions and others that simply offer opportunities to be included. The minister will know that many organisations are struggling in the current crisis, and that if they disappear the burden will fall on NHS services that are already under extreme pressure. What work is the minister doing, in conjunction with the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Local Government, to make sure that the third sector will still be there when we need it most?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Over the course of the pandemic, as previously, we have acknowledged the work of the third sector. Mental health services are about much more than a national health service response.

We value the work that the third sector does for our communities across Scotland.

We have invested in various third sector organisations during the pandemic period and before it—for example, in perinatal mental health services; in Young Scot, so that it can examine the effect of lockdown on our children and young people; and in Cruse Bereavement Care, which I have mentioned.

The mental health delivery board has continued to meet during the pandemic. The third sector plays a key role on that board, so its voice is certainly very much at the table in planning for mental health services once we come out of the pandemic, and during it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Ten minutes remain, and 10 members want to ask questions, so we might have to get a bit swifter at this.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

How will the Scottish Government ensure that parents and carers are made aware of the mental health support that is available for children, and what specific mental health provision will be made available for children who have additional support needs?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

The Scottish Government is working with a range of partners to support children and families, in order to mitigate the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on their mental health.

We have made available support and advice on mental health for parents, carers and their children, on the Parent Club website. That support includes free access to the Solihull Approach online course, which is a resource that helps parents and carers to understand better their child’s emotional development, and supports development of healthy relationships.

Schools remain a key link for parents and carers in supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people, including those who have additional support needs. They will continue to be available for discussion of concerns about a child’s mental health with guidance staff or senior management.

Education Scotland and the national autism implementation team have been working with a range of stakeholders to consider how teachers and teaching staff can be supported in their role of supporting autistic learners back to school.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

A time will come when we will debate how prepared we were for this pandemic, but we must now prepare for the pandemic that we know is coming. Isolation, shielding, loss of loved ones, financial insecurity, the pressures of home schooling and the emotional toll of it all have impacted on mental health. Eighty-three per cent of young people say that their mental health has got worse, and other research shows stark increases in the number of adults with mental ill health.

There will be no excuses. Will we be ready for the mental health pandemic?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

We have been working very closely with NHS boards and others, as I have said, through the mental health delivery board, to ensure that we monitor the impact of Covid-19 on demand and capacity.

We wrote to NHS boards on 14 May, highlighting mental health as a clinical priority. We asked them to set out their plans for reinstating services, and to work with partners to estimate the anticipated rise in mental health needs in their populations and to determine their responses.

I will continue to work with boards and others to ensure that the people of Scotland get the services that they require, post pandemic.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

Delivery of maternity services has necessarily been altered; for example, there are restrictions on who can attend scans and appointments. There is an increased risk of social isolation for women who are beginning motherhood during lockdown. What actions are being taken for the mental wellbeing of pregnant women and new mothers, to prevent an upsurge in postnatal depression?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

In August last year, as Alison Johnstone might remember, we invested £225,000 in third sector organisations to support families and mums in the postnatal period. We have extended that funding to August 2020, when the national perinatal and infant mental health fund will come online. Organisations are actively offering help and support to women and their families during Covid-19.

We also need to remember that health visitors and general practitioners are good sources of advice and support for pregnant women and new mums who feel that they are struggling. Up-to-date information can be found on NHS Inform’s “Ready Steady Baby!” web page, and on the Parent Club and Clear Your Head websites. It would be remiss of me not to mention the excellent care—physical and psychological—that midwives provide to women throughout pregnancy.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Earlier this month, we learned of the extent of waits for child and adolescent mental health services in the year up to the start of lockdown. The official statistics showed that a record 1,253 children had waited more than a year for treatment. We now know how bad the situation was at the outset of the crisis, but experts are warning of a fresh avalanche of need for the services. We also know how damaging grief, removal of freedom, loss of contact and disruption can be.

What is the Scottish Government’s plan for the recovery of CAMHS to meet existing and heightened demand? How does it differ from the existing strategy? Three years into it—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

—we had more children waiting over a year than ever before.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Point made. I call the minister.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

As I have said in my answers to other members’ questions, we anticipate increased demand for mental health support as we move through the phases of recovery.

That is why we have identified mental health as a key priority for the recovery process and for health boards in the remobilisation of services.

Over the coming weeks and months, we will be working directly with NHS boards to develop a recovery plan for mental health services that covers all boards and all phases of recovery, and we will continue to work with them thereafter to monitor their plans and the impact of Covid-19 on the demand for NHS services.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

The minister mentioned the national wellbeing unit. Will she provide an update on use of the unit and say how she sees it, going forward?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I do not think that the minister heard that. Will you repeat the question, Mr Dornan? I am sorry.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

Yes, I will do so happily. The minister mentioned the national wellbeing unit. Will she provide an update on use of the unit and say how she sees it, going forward?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We heard that.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

The national wellbeing service that we have developed for our health and social care staff, third sector staff and unpaid carers is a resource to provide them with the best and most up-to-date information, and to support their mental health and wellbeing. Since it was launched last month, it has been overwhelmingly well received; feedback from people who have used the service has been very encouraging.

The service will develop as we go forward and have more evidence-based information on support for our health, social care and third sector staff. We are monitoring its use. The most recent statistics that I have seen show that the resource is being used by staff and their families from across the country and from across the NHS, social care and the third sector.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will specific services be designed for people, especially the elderly, who are required to continue shielding or are self-isolating?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Annie Wells raises a really important point. We have asked people to do something that is quite extraordinary. We have asked them, essentially, to lock themselves away from their friends and family, to stop going out and to stop accessing their usual support services, and to do all that at a time when they are, no doubt, overwhelmed and worried about the pandemic.

The letter that the chief medical officer issued in March to people who are shielding provided advice on what they could do to keep themselves mentally active, and to look after their mental wellbeing while shielding. It also signposted additional advice and support from NHS Inform and the Breathing Space website. The Clear Your Head campaign has practical tips on what people can do to make themselves feel better while they continue to stay at home, and there is also a support helpline for people who are shielding.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I ask Fulton MacGregor to be brief.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Will the minister provide an update on the distress brief interventions? Will she outline the roll-out of the programme and say how it is being delivered and what the impact has been?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Please be brief, minister.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

The expansion of the programme went live for callers across Scotland on 8 June. The key element in the expansion is that anyone who phones the NHS 24 mental health hub from anywhere in Scotland can be referred to the DBI programme for further support, when that is possible. The expansion is testament to the dedication, hard work and cross-sector co-operation of all the organisations that are involved in the DBI programme.

Business Motion

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

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-22065, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for the stage 3 consideration of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended (other than a suspension following the first division in the stage being called) or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 50 minutes

Groups 4 to 6: 1 hour 35 minutes

Groups 7 and 8: 2 hours 20 minutes

Groups 9 to 12: 3 hours 15 mins.—[

Liz Smith

]

Motion agreed to.

Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill. Members should have the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list, the two supplements to the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments.

The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.

Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible after I call the group. Members should now refer to the marshalled list.

The Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on animal welfare offences penalties. Amendment 32, in the name of Colin Smyth, is the only amendment in the group.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I declare an interest as a proud member of the League Against Cruel Sports, the deputy convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare and the Scottish Environment LINK MSP species champion for badgers.

Amendment 32 looks to increase the maximum penalties available for offences introduced by secondary legislation under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. As it stands, the maximum penalty for any offences created by secondary legislation under that act is six months’ imprisonment or a maximum fine of £5,000. The bill will grant ministers broad regulation-making powers—for example, they will be able to introduce secondary legislation creating offences to secure the welfare of animals and relating to the licensing of activities involving animals. Those broad powers could underpin a range of potentially very serious offences. Offences created using those powers could also involve highly profitable businesses—for example, ministers could introduce regulations on the licensing of animal breeding. In that context, it is essential that fines can be set high enough to act as a deterrent.

My amendment proposes that ministers be able to set penalties of up to 12 months’ imprisonment or a £40,000 fine for offences made under sections 26, 27 and 28 of the 2006 act, which relate to “Provision for securing welfare”, “Licensing etc of activities involving animals” and “Prohibition on keeping certain animals”. That would provide ministers with the freedom to set appropriate penalties when introducing more serious offences through secondary legislation and would ensure that the financial penalties are adequate when profit is a factor. Ministers would still be free to set lower penalties where appropriate, and penalties set under those sections would still receive scrutiny through the regulation-making process. The 2006 act makes it clear that ministers have a statutory duty to consult prior to issuing regulations under those sections and that they must be approved by Parliament.

Amendment 32 reflects the need for higher maximum penalties for animal welfare crimes, to allow fair and proportionate penalties to be issued, which is one of the key aims of the bill. Having raised the wider issue of penalties during stage 2, I am pleased to have been able to work constructively with the minister to present the amendment, which is sensible and proportionate and will help to future proof the powers in the 2006 act to make regulations, including future regulations for the licensing of activities involving animals.

I move amendment 32.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

As we know, the overall objective of the bill is to increase the range of sentencing options in relation to animal welfare and wildlife offences. Therefore, we support Colin Smyth’s amendment 32, as we believe that it is right that anybody who commits an offence under the legislation should receive the highest penalty that is available. We support the proposed increase in penalties.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Like Finlay Carson, we believe that at the heart of this bill is the desire to see cruelty towards animals and abuse of their welfare treated more seriously. That requires penalties to be increased and brought more in line with the sanctions that are in place in most other countries in Europe, in order to better reflect the seriousness of the crimes. I welcome Colin Smyth’s amendment 32, which is a further step in that direction, and the Scottish Liberal Democrats will support it.

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

At stage 2, I said that I fully appreciated the aim of the amendment that Colin Smyth lodged on this issue, and I indicated my support for his intention. Therefore, I was more than happy to work with him to provide a suitable alternative.

Amendment 32 is helpful, and the measure is a proportionate one that will give useful flexibility to develop future animal welfare regulations, with appropriate higher maximum penalties. Unlike Mr Smyth’s original amendment on the issue, it will not prevent the Scottish Government from providing for the use of fixed penalty notices or, indeed, lower maximum penalties for offences in future regulations. With that, I am happy to state that I support the amendment.

Amendment 32 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 2 is on protecting dogs from unnecessary suffering: docking. Amendment 33, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is the only amendment in the group.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I declare an interest, as I am an honorary associate member of the British Veterinary Association.

It has been three years since Parliament partially reintroduced the barbaric tradition of puppy tail docking that had been banned under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. During that period, there has been no monitoring of how that tradition has been resurrected. In fact, after the ban was overturned in Parliament, the Government was explicit that it would not monitor any of the consequences.

No figures are available for the number of puppies that have undergone amputation in Scotland. No evidence exists on whether the practice has been restricted to working dogs or has led to many more dogs undergoing a painful procedure purely for cosmetic reasons. No analysis has been done of whether those operations have reduced the number of injuries to working dogs, and no guidance has been given to vets on the certification of puppies that are destined to become working dogs. I am also unaware of any further studies, support or guidance being available on the reduction of tail injuries to working dogs by tail sheathing or proper kennelling techniques.

Once again in this Parliament, tradition is trumping evidence. The Government is once again turning a blind eye to an issue in order to placate a country sports lobby that has the ear of the Cabinet. The lack of evidence is why science-led bodies such as the British Veterinary Association, OneKind and Blue Cross continue to oppose the amputation of a healthy dog’s tail and a growing number of veterinary practices are simply refusing to carry out those operations.

Even if we accepted the argument that tail shortening prevents damage to some working dogs, evidence shows that more than 300 puppies would have to have their tails docked to prevent the amputation of one adult dog’s tail—more than 300 puppies that might suffer long-term pain and behavioural and communication problems in later life as a result of those operations, simply to avoid one severe tail injury.

The animal welfare arguments in favour of the amputation of a healthy puppy dog’s tail did not stack up in 2006, they did not stack up in 2017 and there is no evidence to suggest that they stack up in 2020. In fact, there is simply no new evidence at all, because no one is even bothering to look for it. For those reasons, it is time to restore the full ban on the docking of all dogs’ tails.

I move amendment 33.

Gail Ross (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Mark Ruskell and I agree on a lot of things—including much of what is in the bill—but amendment 33 is not one of them. I find the heading of the proposed new section offensive, because it infers that people who support the shortening of tails in working dogs are subjecting them to “unnecessary suffering”. The Parliament had that debate in 2017 and we voted on it. I have had representations, not just from the shooting, hunting and landowning lobby but from people who own non-working dogs that have had injuries to their tails. They ask me why, if their spaniel can hurt its tail by wagging it against a door, a spaniel is going into bushes and hurting its tail. We have heard from vets who have had to cut tails off adult dogs and all the suffering that goes along with that.

Mark Ruskell talks about evidence gathering but, for a lot of things here, not much evidence has been gathered, so that is hypocritical. He is right that it is an animal welfare issue, but the animal welfare issue comes when an adult dog has to get its tail taken off; that is a lot more distressing for the dog than when the procedure is done under—

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Gail Ross (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

Yes, absolutely.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I understand the point about distress, but is it 300 times more distressing for an adult dog? That is what we are talking about. Three hundred puppies need to have their tails docked in order to get the welfare benefit that Gail Ross points to, of one dog not having an amputation when it is an adult.

Gail Ross (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I thank Mark Ruskell for that intervention, but I do not accept the argument that, because 300 puppies have to have their tails shortened, it is 300 times more distressing for an adult dog. That is a nonsense argument.

I will not support amendment 33 and I urge members not to support it. As I said, the animal welfare issue is about adult dogs and not about the controlled situation in which puppies have their tails shortened for a good reason.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I am grateful to be able to speak to amendment 33. As an owner of a working cocker spaniel, who has a full tail—even though he wags it so much that it bleeds from time to time—my instinctive position is to rail against any suggestion that such a dog should have his tail docked.

In 2017, when the current law was implemented, overturning the ban that was instigated in 2006, I was uncomfortable with supporting any change in the law. I was encouraged to speak to the veterinary community, which brought me to recognise that, in rare circumstances, for the welfare of the dog, the procedure should take place. I asked myself whether I would refuse if a vet indicated to me that, for his welfare and health, my dog needed his tail docked. The answer is no; I am not a vet and I always listen to that expert advice, just as I would listen to the advice of any other healthcare professional. Exceptional circumstances might necessitate that procedure; therefore, it is wrong to revert to an outright ban, and I ask the chamber to vote against Mark Ruskell’s amendment 33.

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

I declare an interest as the convener of the cross-party group on animal welfare and I speak in support of Mark Ruskell’s amendment 33. I supported the same argument in an intervention in 2017 and nothing has changed my mind; it remains even more resolute.

Those who argue against amendment 33 refer to “tail shortening”. Why move away from the term “docking”? We are using a euphemism to conceal something that is not necessary for an animal. Even if members believe in that argument, when a working bitch has a litter, she might have six or eight puppies, all of which have to have their tails docked, although not all of them will become working dogs. For the sake of one or two, the rest go through the procedure. I do not want to spend too long on that, because my position is well known.

I hope that members will vote with their consciences on amendment 33, rather than bother about party whips, which can get in the way of honesty.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

I speak in support of Mark Ruskell’s amendment 33. Previously, Scottish Labour has supported a ban on tail docking, and I agree that a ban will protect dogs from unnecessary suffering. I was a member of the committee that took evidence on the matter in 2017; I was convinced by the arguments then, and they have not changed. There were arguments that it was necessary to dock the tails of some working dogs, but I was not convinced by them. There is the possibility of a dog wearing a sheath or of bandaging a dog’s tail to prevent such injuries. Scottish Labour supports the move to introduce a ban in order to protect animal welfare.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As Gail Ross said, we ran through this debate three years ago. Last time, the issue provoked a great deal of passionate argument on both sides, and that is the case this time, too. As I observed, both sides argued their case having weighed up and balanced the competing interests in relation to welfare, and the conclusions that were drawn were genuinely held.

Mark Ruskell mentioned a lack of evidence about the appropriate enforcement of the legislation since 2017. However, by lodging amendment 33 at stage 3, he has not allowed the committee or the Parliament to scrutinise it prior to that, nor has he presented any new evidence that the legislation is not being applied appropriately. Those who came to a different conclusion last time, as Christine Grahame did, will no doubt feel equally strongly and will be equally determined to vote for Mark Ruskell’s amendment. I understand that. As Christine Grahame said, members might well have to vote with their conscience on the amendment; it might not be appropriate to apply the party whip. My colleagues will vote accordingly, as they did in 2017.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

As we have heard, tail docking was banned in 2007 but, to bring the legislation in line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom, exemptions were put in place for working spaniels and hunt point retriever breeds. There is no evidence—either available or presented—that indicates any new welfare concerns about that procedure.

It is very disappointing that the Greens, as they often do in the Parliament, lodged an amendment that was outwith the scope of the bill and did not allow for any scrutiny by the committee at stage 2. In some ways, it is disrespectful that Mark Ruskell has lodged amendment 33, given that committee members take a proactive role in considering legislation. We will certainly not be voting for amendment 33.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can I ask for your guidance on whether amendment 33 is outwith the scope of the bill?

The Presiding Officer

That is a good question. The answer is that the amendment is within the scope of the bill.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I take on board your ruling, Presiding Officer, but the amendment is outwith the spirit of the bill. All the way through the bill process, we have been looking at sentencing and certainly not at introducing any new offences.

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

I start by refuting some of the claims that were made by Mark Ruskell, because they are absolutely outrageous and completely unfounded. No one has the ear of the Cabinet. We are not trying to revive a barbaric tradition. The whole purpose of amendment 33 is just to reignite a debate for the sake of it.

I absolutely agree with some of the points that have been raised by other members from across the chamber. Gail Ross put it very well when she said that the procedure is done for animal welfare. Terms such as “docking” are bandied about to reignite the emotion and the debate. As Finlay Carson said, it is an offence to dock tails. Christine Grahame made a point about whether there is a differentiation between docking and shortening. There is a differentiation, because they are two completely separate things.

The bill’s provisions have been carefully developed in close collaboration with the key front-line enforcement agencies in order to make the most essential improvements that they have asked for in animal welfare enforcement. I am really disappointed that Mark Ruskell has taken the opportunity that has been presented at the last minute of the bill process to revive controversy on a matter that was decided by the Parliament just three years ago. That is made worse by the fact that I have sought, at all times, to work with other members across the chamber to build consensus. I have engaged with Mark Ruskell a number of times at stages 1 and 2, and at no point was that issue raised.

I completely understand the strong feelings and emotive arguments on both sides of the debate. However, they were all fully explored—after many years of discussion and debate—by detailed scientific analysis, Scottish Government-funded research and a full public consultation.

After due procedure and consideration by the relevant committee, the legislation, which now allows the tail shortening of specific types of working dogs to be performed only by veterinary surgeons and under very specific conditions, was approved by Parliament in 2017. Outwith that, tail shortening of dogs is not permitted except as part of veterinary treatment.

There is a fine balance that leaves decisions on whether to carry out tail shortening on working dogs—in individual cases—to the professional judgment of veterinary surgeons. They are the best people to make difficult, balanced decisions about what is in the best long-term interests of the individual animals that are presented to them. It also means that we have significantly tighter legislation on this than other parts of the UK.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is welcome that the minister is listening to veterinary surgeons. Will she also address veterinary surgeons’ concerns that there is no certification of working dogs? Unlike in England and Wales, no template of certification

is produced in Scotland. That would give veterinary surgeons some comfort that they are sticking to the letter of the law. If the Government is engaging with science and sector bodies, why has that not happened?

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

We have significantly tighter legislation in Scotland. The decisions are down to the professional judgment of veterinary surgeons, and if Mark Ruskell was as concerned about that issue as he claims to be, he has had plenty of opportunities to discuss it with me. I would have been happy to discuss it with him not only during the earlier stages of the bill, but at any time prior to that. In all the time that I have been in my role, the issue of tail shortening has not been raised.

I will not rehash all the arguments for and against the tail shortening of dogs, because we have done that.

Amendment 33 concerns secondary legislation, which does not need a bill to amend it. Therefore, it does not fit at this stage. The matter could be reviewed in future after proper, detailed consideration of any new evidence—if we think that that is the best use of our time. However, the place to consider the subject in any more detail is not here, so I oppose the amendment and ask Mark Ruskell to withdraw it.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I press amendment 33.

During the past three years, the Scottish Government has refused to monitor and review its own legislation. The policy was put in place against the wishes of bodies that represent the veterinary sector in Scotland. They have raised concerns about that. There was no monitoring of the roll-out.

The minister cannot tell me how many puppy dogs’ tails have been docked in the past three years and she cannot tell me what the welfare benefits are. All that we hear are anecdotal responses from Gail Ross and others about how they feel that there is a net animal welfare benefit to the partial lifting of the restriction on tail docking.

I have asked for evidence, in written questions, during the past three years and have had a plain response from the Scottish Government that it is simply not looking at the evidence and it is not monitoring its policy. Therefore, I ask the Scottish Government to make a commitment to review and monitor its policy.

If the Government thinks that the measure has a net welfare benefit, it should prove it by monitoring and checking that the policy is working and by doing what it said it would do three years ago. We do not have that evidence and, as a result, I think that we should restore the full ban.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 33 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

As this is the first division of the afternoon, I suspend the meeting for five minutes and call members to the chamber.

16:23 Meeting suspended.

16:28 On resuming—

We will proceed with the division on amendment 33.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 22, Against 56, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 33 disagreed to.

Group 3 is on disqualification orders. Amendment 34, in the name of Maurice Golden, is grouped with amendments 35 and 63.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am pleased to propose amendment 34, having raised the issue of disqualification orders during the passage of the bill, which is the appropriate, fair and balanced way in which to introduce amendments that are acceptable to the chamber.

A theme of discussions during the passage of this important bill has been the consistency of sentencing, including the use of disqualification orders. Amendment 34 seeks to address the issue by making it a requirement for courts to consider the use of disqualification orders in the way in which they were always intended to be used—that is, as an animal protection measure, rather than as a form of punishment.

The requirement will apply to all relevant animal welfare cases and require courts to explain their reasons for imposing disqualification orders of the type specified, or for not imposing a disqualification order, and require a record of their reasons to be kept. I hope that that will improve the consistency and transparency of courts’ judgments, and provide us all with a better sense of how courts are using all the tools that are available to them to protect animals and to address the worst harms and offences.

Amendment 63 is a technical amendment that seeks to modify the long title of the bill to include a reference to the proposed requirement on courts to consider making disqualification orders following convictions for animal welfare offences.

I hope that members will support both my amendments. I look forward to hearing further information from Colin Smyth on amendment 35.

I move amendment 34.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I welcome amendment 34, in the name of Maurice Golden, which seeks to improve the use of disqualification orders.

During stage 1, a number of stakeholders highlighted the inconsistent use of disqualification orders. Maurice Golden and I introduced amendments on that issue at stage 2. When I was considering what changes were needed at stage 3, a number of organisations, including OneKind, highlighted four key issues to me.

The first is the need to clarify that the default position in all cases should be for courts to consider a disqualification order. The second is the need for a clear requirement for courts to state the reasons for their decision, whether or not they decide to issue an order. The third is the lack of records on the use of disqualification orders, which could be addressed through a new requirement for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to keep a record of all disqualification orders and applications to vary or delete them. The fourth is the need for clarification that the disqualification order part of the sentence imposed by courts is not a penalty in itself.

Combining the four changes would clarify the purpose of disqualification orders, encourage their proper use, help us gain a better understanding of how and when they are used, and identify any existing issues with their use.

I consider that Maurice Golden’s amendment 34 successfully tackles the first three issues. There is a gap in that it does not address the fourth issue. My amendment aims to do that—it is designed to be a helpful addition to amendment 34.

Amendment 35 seeks to clarify in law that disqualification orders are a means of protecting animal welfare. The orders are issued to prevent those convicted of animal welfare offences from owning or working with animals. That is not a punitive measure; it is an animal welfare measure.

The law as it stands suggests that such orders can be used

“instead of ... any other penalty”.

Amendment 35 would remove that provision and make it clear that disqualification orders should be issued as needed for the protection of animals, and not as an alternative to a penalty.

The legislation as amended would read:

“A disqualification order may be made in addition to any other penalty or order which may be imposed in relation to”

a relevant offence. It would not say that disqualification orders could be issued only alongside a penalty—although I cannot think of a scenario whereby a disqualification order on its own would ever be deemed appropriate without a penalty such as a fine.

My amendment simply states that a disqualification order should not be issued as an alternative to a penalty. I am sure that that would be made clear in any guidance on the legislation. I urge members to support all the amendments in the group.

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

I fully support the rationale for Maurice Golden’s amendment 34.

I support the intention behind the first part of Colin Smyth’s amendment 35, and the amendment is similar to amendment 34. However, although the second part of amendment 35 is equally well intentioned, I am concerned that it strays too far into the territory of limiting the discretion of the courts to use the penalties and powers that are available to them after conviction for a relevant welfare offence. That is not something that Government, or, indeed, Parliament, should be doing.

Amendment 35 seems to be intended to prevent disqualification orders from being issued on their own. Although that might not be a common scenario, in some instances it might be appropriate, depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case and bearing in mind the widely varying circumstances in which relevant animal welfare offences of different types might be committed. It is therefore important that we do not inappropriately fetter the ability of courts to make such decisions.

For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 35. I hope that Colin Smyth will consider not moving it, but if he should do so I urge members not to support it.

The Presiding Officer

I call Maurice Golden to wind up on group 3 and to indicate whether he wishes to press or seek to withdraw amendment 34.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

I will press amendment 34.

Amendment 34 agreed to.

Amendment 35 moved—[Colin Smyth].

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 42, Against 38, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 35 agreed to.

Group 4 is on vicarious liability. Amendment 36, in the name of Claudia Beamish, is grouped with amendments 37 to 40, 1, 53 and 54.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

The amendments in this group seek to extend the bill’s provisions on vicarious liability to certain offences under the

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996.

The offences referred to are not only heinous crimes of cruelty to wildlife; they are also significant in the midst of an environmental emergency. I welcome the fact that the minister has sought to work with me on amendment 39, which, for clarity, seeks to allow for the option of extending the established provisions on vicarious liability in the 1981 act to those involving the illegal setting of traps and snares.

We know that birds of prey are still being harmed, sometimes fatally, by pole traps and uncovered spring traps. In the past year, Police Scotland has investigated incidents involving spring traps set next to a hen harrier nest, and we have all seen the images that have appeared of a golden eagle in flight with what appears to be a spring trap on its leg. I hope that the introduction of vicarious liability for such offences would act as a deterrent and a wake-up call to the very few individuals who still will not respect the law. They include the owners and managers of land on which such offences are committed, as well as the individuals who themselves commit them.

I still consider the amendments extending vicarious liability to the other offences that I have listed to be necessary. I have listened to the minister’s concerns over their legal drafting, which I addressed after stage 2. In brief, they cover the following matters. Amendment 36 is to address the sale, care, possession or transport of protected wild birds and their eggs. Amendment 37 is on the failure to meet legal registration requirements for captive birds and their eggs, or keeping them illegally due to a past conviction for their ill treatment. Amendment 38 is on the illegal confinement of protected birds. Amendment 40 is on the taking of wild hares in the closed season, the intentional destruction of protected wild plants, including their sale, and the possession and sale of animals or invasive species of plants. Amendment 53 highlights the grievous offences that are listed in section 1 of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which include the mutilation, beating, stabbing and so on of

“any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering”.

Amendment 54 is consequential to amendment 53.

From my discussions with the minister, I am aware that she has reservations about the justification for applying vicarious liability to those offences. However, I would argue that we must focus on sending a strong message of deterrence. There are bad landowners and land managers—although they are very few in number—who are aware of, or are committing, those crimes, and they should shoulder the penalties. We are talking about illegal acts that can easily go unreported, but they can be reported. Such acts can be very cruel and can cause environmental loss, and they should be taken very seriously.

With the introduction of vicarious liability, the onus is on the landowner or employer to train their staff properly to ensure that they know the law with regard to wildlife, as much as they would be responsible for training staff on health and safety or other issues on any estate or land. One could say that the introduction of vicarious liability in those areas is an important improvement in the working conditions of gamekeepers.

Furthermore, it has been shown that vicarious liability, when it is used alongside other measures, has been a beneficial addition. In the past, it was introduced alongside the satellite tagging of birds and, in tandem, those two measures have served to reduce the incidence of raptor poisonings in Scotland.

With regard to other measures, it is perhaps worthwhile to stress that the penalties set out in other amendments serve as a complementary set of proposals that would work alongside the extension of vicarious liability.

I support Mark Ruskell’s amendment 1, which relates to badger setts. I am quite clear that the destruction of setts is as serious as killing or injuring a badger in terms of the damage that is caused. It would be difficult for those in charge on the land not to know that a badger sett was being destroyed, and it would surely take quite an amount of person power to destroy a sett. A vicarious liability provision is therefore vital in protecting that species, in order to send a clear message to the minority of landowners and agents and their employees who risk flouting the law by carrying out such a serious crime.

There is a limited basis for vicarious liability in the 2011 act; the owner or manager of the land has very limited liability, and has a clear defence at their disposal. I therefore ask members on all sides of the chamber to support all the vicarious liability amendments in group 4, including Mark Ruskell’s amendment 1. I very much hope that they will do so, because the amendments really will add to the protections that are already in place for wildlife and our environment across Scotland.

I move amendment 36.