Scottish Parliament, 25 August 2020

131 contributions from 41 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is time for reflection, and our leader today is the Rev Fraser Macnaughton, the minister of St Magnus Cathedral, Kirkwall, Orkney. I invite the Rev Fraser to speak.

The Rev Fraser Macnaughton (St Magnus Cathedral, Orkney)

I got a new parlour game for my birthday, which coincided with lockdown. It is called “Wordsmithery” and is a combo of charades and “Who’s in the Bag?”, determining the vocabularic competence of the players. You can maybe guess from the end of that last sentence that I am keen on words.

Words come in numerous forms, languages and sounds—I think that the words rose and rows have eleven different meanings—not to mention accents and dialect. For a Weegie living in Orkney, that has taken a while to get a handle on. Then, when it comes to grammar—well, let’s not go there.

The late, great Ronnie Barker was, of course, a genius when it came to playing with words. The special bag that we have in St Magnus Cathedral for the spent night lights that people place on the stand is labelled “Fork ‘andles”—just one of the memorable Barkerisms that folk grew up with but which transcends generations.

All through my ministry, I have attempted to avoid being sucked into religious words. After centuries of handling and mishandling, most religious words have become so shopworn that nobody is much interested any more. However, there is one word—there may be others—that bucks the trend. Grace, for some reason, mysteriously, still has some of the bloom left. That is even more true of its derivatives, such as gracious and graceful .

Grace is something that we can never get but can only be given. There is no way to earn it or deserve it or bring it about, any more than we can deserve the taste of raspberries and cream or earn good looks or bring about our own birth.

A good sleep is grace and so are good dreams—but we cannot try to have a good dream. The smell of rain is grace. Somebody loving us is grace. Loving somebody is grace. Have you ever tried to love somebody?

The grace of God, however the word “God” is understood, could mean something like: “Here is your life. You might never have been, but you are, because the party wouldn’t have been complete without you. Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don’t be afraid. I am with you. Nothing can ever separate us. It’s for you I created the universe. I love you.”

There is only one catch—[

Interruption

.]

The Presiding Officer

Colleagues, I will pause for a second to see whether we can get

the Rev Macnaughton

back.

We recorded him earlier. No, he is live. Can you hear me? I can see that you can hear us. It is typical that we managed to lose the last words of your thoughtful contribution on words. I also apologise for confusing your first name and your surname. You are the Rev Macnaughton, not the Rev Fraser.

We lost the signal just before you finished. I wonder whether you could pick up before the last paragraph of your thoughtful contribution. You are still on mute. Can you unmute yourself?

The Rev Fraser Macnaughton

How is that?

The Presiding Officer

That is perfect. [

Applause

.]

The Rev Fraser Macnaughton

Okay.

The Presiding Officer

That is a round of applause from the chamber.

The Rev Fraser Macnaughton

The grace of God, however the word “God” is understood, could mean something like: “Here is your life. You might never have been, but you are, because the party wouldn’t have been complete without you. Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don’t be afraid. I am with you. Nothing can ever separate us. It’s for you I created the universe. I love you.”

There is only one catch. Like any other gift, the gift of grace can be ours only if we will recognise it and accept it.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. You can add “perseverance” to your list of words this week.

Business Motion

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-22527, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a change to today’s business, which is to move decision time.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Tuesday 25 August 2020—

delete 5.00 pm Decision Time

and insert 6.30 pm Decision Time—[

Graeme Dey

]

Motion agreed to.

Masks (World Health Organization Guidance)

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the latest World Health Organization guidance that young people over the age of 12 should wear a mask to help prevent transmission of Covid-19. (S5T-02332)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

In the light of the latest scientific and public health advice, including the World Health Organization guidelines, the Scottish Government has, after discussion with the education recovery group, updated the advice on the use of face coverings in secondary schools and on school transport. Unless specific exemptions apply, face coverings should now be worn in secondary schools by adults and pupils in corridors and confined communal areas where physical distancing is difficult to maintain. Face coverings should be worn also by all children aged five and over on dedicated school transport, in line with the guidance for public transport. The guidance on school reopening will be revisited to reflect that latest advice.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and I welcome today’s announcement, although I am unsure why it could not have come before schools reopened, rather than two weeks into term. I accept that, were masks to be worn in class, there are legitimate issues with communication and learning, but the Government’s rationale for not including classrooms in the guidance appears to be that there is greater scope for social distancing there. That is not what pupils and teachers are telling me, which is no surprise, given that classrooms are no bigger than they were in March. What is the cabinet secretary’s message to teachers and pupils who cannot socially distance in their classrooms?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The reason why the guidance has been issued today is that the public health advice has changed. That was not the public health advice that we had when schools returned three weeks ago.

The rationale for our approach to classrooms, for which we are not recommending that face coverings should be utilised, is that, in the World Health Organization guidelines, there is to be a clear balancing of the public health benefits versus the potential for undermining education and learning. In such matters, there is a sensitive balance to be constructed and considered in that respect.

In response to Mr Greer’s question, I say that the guidance from the education recovery group is very clear: in a classroom setting, teachers should be exercising physical distancing of 2m from pupils to minimise the risk of transmission of the virus. However, if individuals wish to wear face coverings, they should be free to do so at any stage in the school day.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

The National Deaf Children’s Society, among others, has been calling for the increased use of clear face masks, which will now be particularly important in schools, for not only staff, but other pupils, so that those with hearing impairments and other additional access needs are not socially excluded.

Will the Government ensure that clear face coverings will be made available to all schools for staff and pupils, if they require them?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Greer makes a valid point. That is why we have encouraged schools to specifically look at the circumstances of individual children and young people, and make sure that their needs are properly taken into account in the planning for the delivery of education in the very different environment in which we are now having to operate.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I will give the Government the opportunity to clear up any potential confusion around the guidance. The language that is being used by ministers, as reported in the media, is “non-mandatory but obligatory guidance”, or words to that effect. Which is it? Is it guidelines that the Government would like schools to follow or mandatory regulations that schools must follow? There is an important difference between the two. If the guidance is not compulsory, does that mean that schools can choose whether to implement it? If the guidance is mandatory, who will enforce it, and who will provide the personal protective equipment?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Let me try to navigate my way through the issue, because I appreciate its complexity.

The guidance that is being set out today is to be applied in all secondary schools in Scotland without question, and the guidance specifies how it is to be applied. In communal areas and on school transport, the guidelines should be followed. There will be exceptions, for example for health reasons, including those that Mr Greer has just raised. There will also be circumstances in which young people might be concerned about face coverings. We are trying to create an approach that is consistent with the wider approach in Scottish education of encouraging compliance and working with individuals to secure their compliance, rather than having mandatory guidance that has legal force, which, frankly, would be alien to many aspects of the normal working of our schools. That approach is being taken to ensure that individuals can follow the guidance that is being set out by the Government in a fashion that is consistent with the way in which our schools habitually operate.

I hope that my answer gives Mr Greene the clarity that he seeks. We are trying to work with schools to make sure that they are as safe as possible for children, young people and staff.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, as my main concern is the issue of exemptions on health grounds for young people. I was concerned to see photographs from a school in my Motherwell and Wishaw constituency in the press last week. Given the change of direction, what comfort can parents and young people take from the guidance to make them feel safer?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is important that we consider this move, along with the other mitigations that are part of the guidance that has already been published. In the guidance, we set out the importance of physical distancing in schools, and the importance of hand hygiene, cleaning regimes and following cough etiquette in all circumstances.

We are adding an additional layer of protection through the wearing of face coverings in the circumstances that I have set out in my answer to Mr Greer’s question. There will, of course, be exemptions for young people who are unable to comply with the approach. However, the approach is designed to take every measure, based on the available public health advice, to make our schools as safe as they can be.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The WHO’s advice on face coverings in schools has changed, but its advice on testing is long standing. Why can we not complement the use of face coverings in schools with the routine testing of staff, as the GMB trade union has argued?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I announced in Parliament about two weeks ago that it is possible for staff to secure testing when they are concerned about Covid. A direct employer portal enables staff to access the testing, whatever their role happens to be in school.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Last week, I made the case for extending the guidance on face coverings. The Government’s guidance was one step behind, so schools were forced to take the initiative themselves. I am glad that the education secretary has now progressed the issue. Most pupils are already familiar with wearing face coverings in public places. Is the Government advising that face coverings should be worn as soon as possible, even though the guidance will not come into effect until next Monday?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I encourage the wearing of face coverings by young people as soon as practicable. Beatrice Wishart makes the fair point that we are all accustomed to wearing face coverings in a variety of public settings, so there will be familiarity with the practice. I certainly encourage individuals to take that action as soon as possible, and certainly before 31 August.

Mark McDonald (Independent, Aberdeen Donside)

I welcome this morning’s clarification from the cabinet secretary that children and young people with autism—I highlight my interest as a parent of an autistic child—will be exempt from wearing face coverings. How prescriptive does he expect the list of exemptions to be, given the plethora of conditions that might make it difficult for young people to wear face coverings? What steps will be taken to ensure that there is awareness of the exemptions, so that young people are not singled out for not wearing them and subjected to bullying?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Fundamentally, I think that it is important that schools, which know their pupils well, are able to exercise the judgment that will enable appropriate exemptions to be applied to the pupils who require to have them. That is best served by judgments in school, rather than by a prescriptive list from the Government.

The second question was about how young people with exemptions are treated. That is a sensitive issue. Mark McDonald raises the danger of young people being singled out or targeted because they are not wearing face coverings. We have to work in schools, which our educators are doing at all times, to create an atmosphere of mutual respect for individuals, so that the difference in circumstances that they face can be properly respected in how they participate in schools, because we want our schools to be safe and inclusive places for all children and young people in Scotland.

Delayed Discharge into Care Homes

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on delayed discharge into care homes. (S5T-02346)

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

The latest published information from Public Health Scotland indicates that 357 patients who encountered delay in their discharge were discharged to care homes during June 2020, which is 32 per cent of the total discharges that month. The remaining 68 per cent were discharged back to their own homes. That compares with 33 per cent of delayed discharges going to a care home in June 2019.

Hospitals and care homes are taking three key steps whenever a patient is discharged from hospital. First, a patient should be tested 48 hours before discharge. Secondly, they should be isolated for 14 days on arrival in the care home, regardless of the test result. Finally, at all times a thorough risk assessment should be undertaken prior to discharge, to ensure that the care home is able to provide the care required, including having suitable physical space for isolating individuals and having staff available for the delivery of care and support to the resident.

Last week, as members might recall, I commissioned Public Health Scotland to produce validated statistics on patients who were tested prior to discharge, and on the outcome and date of the test. That information will include how many were discharged while still considered to be infectious and the rationale for that decision.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

How does the number of delayed discharges compare to the number prior to the pandemic?

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

The number of delayed discharges has reduced significantly over the past few months. The June census, which is the latest published, validated census, showed 808 delayed discharges for any reason or duration, compared with 1,627 in February 2020 and 1,442 in June 2019. Nearly a third of all those that were delayed this June were complex cases, including people who lacked capacity and were awaiting a court-appointed guardian.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will be well aware that the winter season always sees an increase in hospital admissions, and I know that work is currently being undertaken to strengthen the resilience of our Scottish health service. What forecasting work is being done to balance the transfer of care and mitigate the impact of that on our health and social care sectors?

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

A number of steps are being undertaken as part of what would be normal winter planning but are this year increased in their significance because we are still in the middle of a pandemic. They include the significant expansion of the flu vaccination programme.

With regard to our health boards’ work, another step is health board mobilisation plans, which the boards were asked to produce to take us through to the end of March 2021. Those plans have to have been developed in consultation with the local health and social care partnerships, which include our local authorities, so that we can also see what additional capacity either needs to continue, particularly in terms of care at home, or needs to be brought in, as we make those estimates. The overall objective is to treat people as close to home as possible, so part of that effort also includes scaling up—where it is clinically safe to do so—the hospital at home initiative, which has been so successfully undertaken by NHS Lanarkshire over many years.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

To follow up on the revelations by the

Sunday Post

and

The

Courier

at the weekend, if the decisions that were made in March and April to discharge all those hundreds of patients who were untested or Covid positive were based on the clinical needs of patients, why were those same patients not discharged in February or December or January, when they were likely to have become delayed discharge cases?

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

I will make two points in answer to Mr Findlay’s question.

First, the point of commissioning Public Health Scotland to do the work that I have just outlined is to make the data that it produces, which will cover all our health boards, really clear. As Mr Findlay knows, the

Sunday Post

article was able to deal with only some returns from some of our health boards. Part of the objective of the Public Health Scotland work is to identify not only patients who were discharged who had had a positive Covid test, but the date on which they had that test. That information determines whether they were infectious at the point of discharge. When we have those numbers, which I hope that we will have by the end of next month, that data will of course be published, and then we can have further discussions with colleagues on the issues that they want to raise.

On Mr Findlay’s other point, I remind members that, on 17 March, I said in the chamber:

“We are also working closely with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, health and social care partnerships and chief officers to get a rapid reduction in delayed discharges. I have set a goal of reducing those by at least 400 by the end of this month.”—[

Official Report

, 17 March 2020; c 7.]

That was part of a statement to the Parliament that outlined our understanding and expectation at the time of the number of potential hospital cases that would have to be dealt with because of Covid-19. Our modelling said that we needed to create space in our hospitals and additional intensive care space to deal with the demand. That was all part of that work.

It has long been a policy of the Government to reduce delayed discharges, and colleagues from across the chamber have agreed with that. In the period that we are talking about, the health and social care partnerships, supported by the health boards, put additional focus on working through the obstacles that were in the way of discharge. However, that does not contradict the fact that it is always a clinical decision that determines whether someone is ready to be discharged and that a multidisciplinary risk assessment is carried out to agree where they should be discharged to.

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

Following the reports on the issue from the Queen’s Nursing Institute, is the cabinet secretary aware of whether there have been issues related to delayed discharge early in the pandemic in other parts of the United Kingdom?

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

Yes, there have been. In the regular four-nations calls that I take part in with my colleague health ministers in Wales and Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Matt Hancock, we regularly discuss the common challenges to us all in responding to the pandemic. Those challenges have included ensuring that our NHS was prepared, introducing additional resources—in Scotland, that was done through the NHS Louisa Jordan hospital—the issues around personal protective equipment, which have been rehearsed in the chamber many times, and of course the situation with delayed discharges. We discussed the care and support that were needed to ensure that we had the right care-at-home services, as well as the approach that was taken in care homes. In common with those three other countries, we have developed our understanding as the understanding of the virus has developed, and we have developed our guidance and actions accordingly.

Alison Johnstone (Green, Lothian)

On Sunday, a letter was published from the cabinet secretary and COSLA’s health spokesman to Scotland’s health and social care partnerships. The letter revealed that the director general of health and social care set a target to reduce delayed discharges by 900 by the end of April. Does the cabinet secretary consider that that letter constitutes an intervention by Government in decisions that would otherwise have been taken purely by clinicians in consultation with social work colleagues? What consideration was given to the impact that urging the partnerships to meet the target might have?

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

No, I do not think that there is any contradiction whatsoever in our approach. I mentioned what I said in the chamber on 17 March. On 1 April, I said that we had

“reduced the numbers of delayed discharges in our hospitals by 500.”

I went on:

“We will continue to work towards a further reduction of 500 over the month of April.”—[

Official Report

, 1 April 2020; c 85.]

There is no contradiction in the Government or indeed any Opposition party having a policy to reduce delayed discharges on the ground that we all know about and accept—that it is positively harmful for people, particularly older people, to stay in hospital for longer than is clinically required—and saying that the final decision about whether someone is ready to be discharged is a clinical decision that is to be taken patient by patient, as it should be, or that the decision about where they will be discharged to and the care and support that they require involves a multidisciplinary risk assessment that is undertaken by social work, the clinicians and the resident or their family, or both.

There is no contradiction in that at all, so that letter is not some blinding revelation; it is simply the Government enacting a policy decision. The decisions about who is discharged, when, and to where remain clinical and multidisciplinary decisions, as they have always been.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Big questions are still outstanding, on: the advice on asymptomatic transmission; the value of testing all the way through the pandemic; the number of positive patients who were sent or moved to care homes; and the isolation arrangements in care homes. All of those are big questions. Do they not lead the health secretary to the conclusion that we need an early public inquiry?

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

Mr Rennie is right that all those issues require big decisions and need to be scrutinised thoroughly. As the First Minister and I have said more than once, we know that there will need to be a public inquiry into the entire handling of the pandemic in Scotland—I expect that there will be inquiries elsewhere, too. When the time is right, we will say what we believe the remit of the public inquiry should be, and it will get under way.

Right now, we are still in the middle of a pandemic. We have outbreaks, clusters of cases, testing challenges and a flu vaccine expansion programme, and we still have to remobilise the NHS while it does all that additional work. This is not the point for us to take our focus away from that job—which, at the end of the day, is about saving lives—in order to set up a public inquiry and direct all officials into that area of work.

The work that we do now is important. The public inquiry will also be important. When the time is right, we will have that public inquiry.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

It is unfair to let social workers and clinicians take the blame for what happened. We have all seen the letter, so I give the cabinet secretary another opportunity to now admit that it was the Government’s policy that led to so many untested and infectious patients being cleared out of hospitals and placed into Scotland’s care homes. Will she admit that?

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

Nobody—not me, the First Minister or any other member of the Government—is suggesting that clinicians, care home workers, social workers or even patients themselves are somehow to blame for what happened. [

Interruption

.] No, I am explaining to Ms Lennon how delayed discharge works in any circumstances, including in a pandemic.

First of all, the lead clinician for a patient—any patient—determines that the patient is ready to be discharged, because they need no more treatment in the hospital setting. A multidisciplinary assessment is then undertaken to determine the best place for the individual to be discharged to. One of the great improvements that we have seen during the pandemic is the widespread adoption across our health and social care partnerships of work on such assessment beginning much earlier than the point at which the clinician decides that a patient should be discharged.

I am not in the business of blaming anyone at all. I have always been clear that I am accountable for the decisions that I have taken. I believe that it is right to hold a public inquiry at the right time. Right now, I am focused on doing the best possible job that I can to ensure that citizens, patients, residents and our staff across the NHS are given the resources that they need and are kept as safe as possible.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I keep hearing the phrase “clinical decision”. The reality is that a clinical decision is about the health of the patient and the patient’s ability to leave hospital; it is not about the impact of Covid on a care home. We heard today that the Care Inspectorate was not involved in the decision-making process, so who was looking after the care homes when the legislation was brought to the Parliament?

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

The care home looks after the care home in relation to—let me be very clear—deciding whether it wishes to take a person. That is the care home’s decision. Some care homes closed their doors to new admissions, and some still do. We ask them to do so if they have a positive case but, in those early days, care homes did that themselves, because they are independent providers. As Mr Whittle knows, some care homes are run by the private sector, some are run by the third sector and some are run by local authorities.

They make those decisions. However, the work of determining whether the care home in question has the right nursing and physical capacity to keep a new admission isolated from day 1, as the guidance specifies, is undertaken by the multidisciplinary team, which will of course talk to that care home about whether it can meet the resident’s requirements.

I tell Mr Whittle that that is how it works. It is not rocket science—it is really straightforward. I know that he knows that, so I am not quite sure what point he is trying to make. He knows as well as I do the process that is gone through—there are many care homes in the constituency that I represent and which he covers as part of his responsibilities, so he knows exactly how the system works with East Ayrshire Council and the local health and social care partnership.

We know how the system works: it continues to work as it always has done. The idea that there was some secret target is nonsense; I have just read out from the record—twice—what I previously said we were going to do.

Cancer Services

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that patients have timely access to cancer services, and when cancer surgery will be restored to full capacity across all national health service boards. (S5T-02339)

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

From the outset of our response to the pandemic, we prioritised emergency and urgent care, including cancer services, which have remained in place throughout the pandemic. Although some treatment plans have changed to minimise individual risk, cancer surgery in Scotland is currently operating close to pre-Covid levels, and the service is looking to increase what it is doing.

The framework for the recovery of cancer surgery, which I published in June, was clear on how cancer surgery would be prioritised across Scotland. Provision is supported through the utilisation of private sector capacity and the NHS Golden Jubilee. Cancer wait time performances for quarter 1 include 96 per cent meeting the 31-day target and 84.7 per cent meeting the 62-day standard. Further management information that we currently hold will be validated and published later in September.

Health boards are now working on local mobilisation plans to ensure timely access to services, including those relating to cancer. Last week, I announced a new national plan for cancer services, to be published in the autumn, which will ensure that patients continue to have swift access to treatment and care.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response, and I note from today’s update that the Scottish Government has indeed published a refreshed framework for the recovery of cancer surgery. I also note that the reference to 60 per cent capacity has now been removed, which is a welcome change. We are all grateful to those healthcare workers who were able to keep emergency cancer services running.

However, we know that there was a postcode lottery in cancer provision before Covid, and things were not exactly going brilliantly before the pandemic hit. Can I get a guarantee from the cabinet secretary today that cancer surgeries will not be reduced? Can we get a date for when they will be restored to full capacity in all health boards?

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

Cancer surgeries will not be reduced. With regard to the date that Ms Lennon is—entirely reasonably—seeking, my answer is that when we have the validated management information, that will tell me what percentage of the pre-Covid level our current surgery capacity is at. It is more than 60 per cent—I know that for sure. I will then be able to decide, based on what boards and the cancer teams tell me, how long I think that it will be before we get to 100 per cent capacity. At that point, in September, I will be happy to write to the member and to bring the matter back to the chamber if colleagues wish me to do so.

Monica Lennon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s offer of a written update, but I think that the whole chamber would appreciate the opportunity to ask questions and get a fuller statement on the matter.

Today, in response to the statistics published by Public Health Scotland, Macmillan Cancer Support has said that it is “extremely” concerned, and it has reminded us that waiting for a cancer diagnosis, or to hear whether you have a life-threatening illness, is one of the worst experiences that anyone can have in their life. Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on how many people have missed out on cancer screenings as a result of lockdown measures so far? What is the cabinet secretary’s message for anyone who is at home and is worried because their appointment or treatment has been delayed? We all have constituents in that situation. What can the cabinet secretary say to reassure them?

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

I completely understand what Macmillan Cancer Support is saying. The new national plan for cancer services that is being developed, which I will publish in the autumn, is being worked through with key stakeholders such as Macmillan and Cancer Research UK, which have such a great deal of expertise and of understanding about how patients feel and what they need and want.

I do not have the number of people who missed screening with me. Rather than make an approximation, I am happy to send it to Ms Lennon immediately after these questions. She will know that we have restarted screening services, with cervical screening beginning on the week of 13 July and breast screening having resumed from 3 August. Boards have also resumed bowel screening colonoscopies and appointments.

My advice to individual patients would always be to speak to the clinical lead of their cancer team, who is best able to advise them about their particular situation and how the team is progressing in its work. That failing, individuals can of course write to me, and we can assist them as best we can, but the starting point is those with the expertise and the knowledge of the individual patient and their case. That will be the clinical lead for their team or, in some instances, the specialist nurse.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on the framework for recovery from cancer surgery? How will that tie in with the overall objectives of the Scottish Government’s cancer strategy?

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

It will tie in with our objectives under the cancer strategy. The framework makes it clear that patients are treated and listed for surgery in order of clinical priority in exactly the same way across all of NHS Scotland. The point of that is to ensure that there is equity of access based on that assessment of clinical priority. Our boards are expected to work together to ensure that patients are offered the earliest available appointment. In some instances, that might mean that patients will not be treated in their local board area, or they will perhaps be treated in their board area but not in the nearest hospital setting to where they live. In those circumstances, we will ensure that support is provided to the patient and their family if they have to move any distance from where they would normally expect to receive treatment.

The national cancer treatment response group is overseeing all of that and is ensuring that the framework is being implemented. The framework, the national plan for cancer services and our overall cancer strategy—which Mr Torrance referred to—will be brought together, and we will ensure that they align. The objective here is to restart and increase the delivery of all those services as quickly as we can. As members would expect, and as I know they will agree, treating cancer is one of our most important priorities.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

My apologies to the three members who were not called.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Have you had a request for the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport to make a statement on the issues raised in question 2? What happened in our care homes is a national scandal and we have to get to the bottom of it. We have to hold the Government to account for decisions that it made. Can you advise whether there has been a request for a statement? Has the cabinet secretary advised whether she will come and take more questions on this very important issue?

The Presiding Officer

I thank Mr Findlay for the point of order. That issue was raised at the Parliamentary Bureau earlier today. The business managers agreed to return to the subject following today’s topical questions. Business managers will consult with me later today, and Parliament will be kept informed as to whether the Government will come back with a statement on the matter.

Ferguson Marine

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

The next item of business is a statement by Fiona Hyslop on Ferguson Marine. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Presiding Officer, I will make a statement on progress at Ferguson Marine shipyard in Port Glasgow.

In response to the Covid pandemic and to protect public health, Ferguson Marine implemented robust measures and delivered a managed shutdown of the yard on 27 March 2020, which involved a move to home working where possible. In line with Scottish Government guidelines, Ferguson Marine began the site preparation phase of restart during the week of 1 June. The yard resumed outdoor working on 8 June and the launch of the air cushion barge was used to pilot physical distancing controls with a team of 32 people.

Work on the ferries resumed on 29 June with a similar-sized team. The team has since been increased, using staggered start times, to around 130 people, which is approximately 50 per cent of the workforce. The team is supported by a skeleton crew of supervision and technical staff, with other employees working from home where possible. Although no work was possible at the yard, extensive work was being done from employees’ homes, notably on design, as the Ferguson team is working closely with engineers from International Contract Engineering on the detailed design of the ferries. That work continues.

Projects that are critical to turn around the business also continue to progress. Those include finance and budgeting systems, implementation of the materials requirements planning system and the new quality management system, all of which are making good progress. The Covid-19 safety measures that allowed a return to work at the yard could only have been implemented with trade union support, and I am pleased to record that the trade unions were happy to agree that robust safety standards were in place. Nonetheless, all employees who can work from home will continue to do so unless they have been specifically identified as being essential to be on site.

I recognise the disproportionate impact that Covid-19 has had on Greenock and Inverclyde, and I am committed to ensuring that all decisions on the Ferguson Marine restart take account of not only the need to keep the workforce safe but the needs of the wider region. I also recognise the importance of the 350 jobs that Ferguson’s provides—jobs that are essential to Inverclyde. Across Scotland, Ferguson’s supports a further 350 jobs through its supply chain—that is a total of 700 jobs. Critical among those are the 26 apprenticeship opportunities that the yard offers; they are critical for the youngsters themselves and for the future of shipbuilding at Ferguson’s and in Scotland.

The yard has done everything possible to limit the impact of the closure on the delivery of the two Scottish Government-funded ferries under construction. Significant progress has been made in planning and design and projects underpinning the turnaround of the business.

Regarding progress on vessels 801 and 802, I am pleased to report that, despite the Covid emergency, the Glen Sannox entered dry dock on 10 August. The vessel had very heavy marine growth on the hull due to the time spent at the quayside, and I can report that 42 tonnes of mussels were removed from the hull of the vessel. A major risk factor was the condition of the hull paintwork, but despite the heavy marine growth a joint survey with the owners concluded that the paintwork is in good condition. The main work for the dry dock has now commenced; the bulbous bow has been removed and replaced and the starboard door is being installed. I am pleased to be able to place before the Parliament an updated report on the schedule for delivery and associated costs.

To date, the Covid response has left the yard either closed or on restricted working for nearly six months. The estimated cost related to the Covid lockdown is £3.3 million, which will be treated as an exceptional item and not a project cost. That cost comprises £1.6 million of payroll costs—in other words, staff wages—and £1.7 million of facilities costs, which are in effect the cost of the yard.

The cost of the project to deliver the ferries is unchanged at £110.3 million. Within that envelope, there has been an increase in the cost of electrical installation, which has been offset by savings elsewhere and a reduction in the contingency. The delivery of the Glen Sannox is now planned for a date in the range of April 2022 to June 2022. The delivery of 802 is now planned for December 2022 to February 2023.

Beyond the work on the vessels, significant progress has been made on building a more robust business at the yard. Good progress has been made in rebuilding the morale of the workforce, and communications with the workforce have improved. There has never been any question about the quality of the workforce, and I would like to thank all the members of the workforce for all their efforts to get the yard back to work.

The yard is addressing a number of legacy issues. Planning and work sequencing have been upgraded. Further improvements in design control and the supply chain will allow many of the barriers to effective working to be removed. We expect physical distancing policies to have an effect on productivity, but we anticipate that that will improve as the yard adapts to the new working practices.

I am pleased to report that several key vacancies have been filled by permanent appointments that will reinforce the professionalism that Tim Hair, the turnaround director, brings to the job.

I have appointed a new board of directors to the business. The new board will provide the leadership that is required to take the yard into the future. Members of the board bring the diverse range of skills and experience that is needed to support the turnaround of the business and completion of the ferries.

Key to the future is ensuring that there is direct workforce representation to the board. The workforce voice must be heard and listened to, and the workforce must be actively involved in discussions on how that can best be achieved. I have asked the board to establish a workforce liaison committee, which will be made up of a cross-section of the workforce. The committee is designed to engage with the board and to encourage the workforce to engage more effectively across the different areas of the company. Trades union representatives can attend each board meeting to address the board on any issues on which they feel that it is necessary for them to do so. They will be accompanied by the chair of the workforce liaison committee. That will be a standing item on the agenda. The board’s commitment to fair work practices is central to the successful turnaround and future sustainability of the yard.

The future of the yard goes beyond the completion of hulls 801 and 802, and management capacity is being built to enable a focus on winning new work. Ferguson Marine has received approaches to bid for work, which is an encouraging sign that market confidence in the yard is starting to return to where it should be. The yard’s approach to winning work will be based on its strengths and capabilities, targeting vessels that are sufficiently complex to optimise capacity and the skills of the workforce.

The Scottish ministers are exploring the potential benefits and challenges around the direct award to Ferguson’s of future contracts for Scottish Government vessels. A direct award is not a given, for a number of complex legal, financial and structural reasons. We are investigating what might be possible, but we are clear that demonstrating improved efficiency and completing the turnaround that we initiated last year will be key to the yard securing work, public sector or otherwise.

The year has been hugely challenging for the business. In line with what has happened to much economic activity across Europe, the Covid pandemic has essentially closed the yard for six months. Despite that interruption to business, much has been achieved. The turnaround director has significantly strengthened the senior management team, I have appointed a new board to help to drive the business forward, trades union representatives have direct access to the board and a workers liaison committee is being set up. Vessel design has progressed significantly, and the dry-dock inspection of 801 demonstrated that the paintwork is sound.

Work to complete the ferries can now proceed at full speed, and I believe that we can look to the future of Ferguson’s with confidence.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question would press their request-to-speak buttons.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

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

which does not take us much further on. It does not tell us much that is new. We still know that the cost of the ferry debacle is around three times what was originally forecast. The ferries will be five years late. It is a shambles. I understand that Covid-19 has had an impact; of course it has. I also express my thanks to the workforce at Ferguson’s. They deserve thanks from us all. But this is a shambles.

The statement is interesting for what it says, but it is also interesting for what it does not say. It does not say anything about the costs mentioned in a story that appeared over the weekend. That story suggested that when the former Cabinet Secretary for Finance granted a £30 million loan to Ferguson Marine he knew that the shipyard was in financial difficulties and that the loan would create a path to nationalisation. The Parliament, however, was told that the purpose of the loan was to help the shipyard to diversify.

What did the Government know when Ferguson Marine was given that loan? What did it know about the company’s financial position when that loan was granted?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I thank the member for praising the workforce. It does not help that workforce to hear what is happening at the yard being denigrated.

The enquiry that is taking place in the Parliament will address what happened and many of the issues that Graham Simpson has raised. My job as the economy secretary responsible for Ferguson’s is to make sure that the company is in a position to complete the ferries, to secure the yard and, most importantly, to secure the future of the 350 workers at the yard and the 350 workers who are part of the supply chain.

Those who know me and have worked with me as a cabinet secretary know that I will be as open and as detailed as I can, as will the Government. The information that the

Herald

newspaper had is not new. It is not a revelation. The Parliament had that information back in December, in the detailed report published by the Government to give that information. If the member wants more information about the loan, I refer him to paragraph 137 of the written statement that the Government provided to the Parliament and to its committee on 12 August.

It is not unusual for Governments to look at support for businesses, either in the form of an unsecured loan, as for the £15 million, or as a secured loan, as for £30 million. The information about those two loans was supplied to the Finance and Constitution Committee on, as I recall, 24 April 2018 and 27 June 2018. The committee could decide whether it wanted to know whether those loans were secured or unsecured.

I return to the update that I provided. The turnaround director that we appointed has produced a response and an update to the Parliament to ensure that we know about the route forward for the two ferries and the improvements that are taking place at the yard. Those improvement will give us the satisfaction of delivering the ferries, which would never have been produced under the Conservatives, who wanted to have the vessels built in South Korea.

My job is to make sure that the yard has a future. It will have a stronger future if the Parliament gets behind and supports the workforce, and the future work that we want to secure for the yard.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

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

The ferry fiasco strikes at the very heart of this Government’s incompetence. Contracts for the two ferries were signed in 2015, and the First Minister told us then that there was a fixed price of £97 million for delivery in 2018. More than four years later, in December 2019, we were told that the additional cost to complete the two ferries—over and above what had already been spent—was estimated to be between £110.3 million and £114.3 million, with delivery of one ferry by the end of 2021 and the second by October 2022.

Today, we are told that there are further costs of £3.3 million, albeit that they are Covid related, with delivery dates now as late as June 2022 for one ferry and February 2023 for the second. Those costs are Covid related, but the overall price tag has doubled since the contract was signed, and it is nearly five years late.

For the benefit of any doubt, will the cabinet secretary confirm the total bill for the two ferries—not the additional costs but the total cost? Who does she believe is to blame for this fiasco? We know that it is not the workforce, who should be on the board and not just attending the board meetings. Does the Government take any responsibility whatsoever for this scandal?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I thank the member for his support for the workforce. My responsibility is to come to Parliament with an update. We have had a Covid interruption. The matter has been of interest to the Parliament and it continues to be so. It is important that we know what the changes are. There have undoubtedly been changes because the yard was closed because of Covid. I do not think that the accusation that the Government is responsible for the disruption is accurate or needed.

I have gone through the changes and reflected the significant improvements that have taken place in the past six months, since the previous update was provided to the Parliament, and that is what I am reporting on today. We will let the committee hold its inquiry into the past; I am looking at where the yard is today but also—and most importantly—at where it can be tomorrow.

The member asked about the figures. As I indicated, the build figures have not changed since the update six months ago. There have been some increases for electrification, but they have been offset by savings that have been made elsewhere.

Given the project management in particular, but also other things that have been introduced by the turnaround director, I am confident that we can make sure that the ferries are delivered. The most important thing is to support the communities that are reliant on the ferries. I share the member’s frustration given that those communities wanted the ferries to be delivered earlier.

We understand that there have been disputes between CMAL and FMEL. There were issues and concerns as far back as February 2016. For example, the quarterly report from CMAL to Transport Scotland for February to April 2016 shows that, even then, there was a delay of seven weeks to the hull structure drawings by FMEL. That involved the bulbous hull that has now been replaced, as I reported in the update. That is a significant development. Graham Simpson obviously does not know much about shipbuilding if he does not realise that the changes and developments that have been taking place in the dry dock over the past six months are significant and are important to the completion of the ferry.

Let us get behind the workforce. I am sure that Mr Smyth wants to do that, but let us give them confidence that they have this Parliament behind them.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement and I reiterate the thanks of my community and my constituents for saving the yard and the jobs in my community. Given what the Tories and the Labour Party are saying today, they seem to think that it is a waste of money.

In her statement, the cabinet secretary spoke about the 26 apprentices. Can she provide further information on any further apprenticeship schemes that the yard will be considering for the future?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

One of my first appointments as economy secretary was to visit the yard in February, just before the lockdown. I was extremely impressed by the confidence that the trade union representatives and the workforce have in the apprentices and the future of the yard, and by their support.

The yard set out to recruit 24 apprentices this year in several of the trades in the shipyard. The calibre of the candidates was excellent and the yard has expanded the programme to add two extra apprentices on a technician route that is intended to take them into the engineering department at the end of their apprenticeships. That brings the total to 26, as I mentioned in my statement. Next year, the yard hopes to be able to expand the programme to offer graduate apprenticeships.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Jim McColl, who is still an economic adviser to the Scottish Government, has predicted that the total cost of delivering the two ferries will exceed £300 million. If he is proved right, will the cabinet secretary resign?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I am not sure that predictions will be as accurate as the well-meaning Mr McColl may have set out. It is nowhere near where we are. It is an exaggeration, and it is wrong to try to impose a prediction when I have just made a statement to members that talked about efficiencies and said that, despite the pressures, the yard is focused and is on a mission to complete those ferries in a far more efficient and productive manner than had been the case previously.

As I am sure those who have visited the yard know, project management was an issue. Work that was done on the basis of the concept design rather than the basic detailed design will have cost money. We all know that the cost had increased. We can see the reasons for that, for example building on concept design rather than the basic design, as we have seen in relation to the need to replace the bulbous bow. The ordering and sequencing of some of the project in the past will have cost money.

That is not the way forward. As I have set out, the way forward is shown in the update report, which members have received and can study. It has shown the improvements that have taken place, even in the past six months, as a result of the implementation of the plans that were put forward by the turnaround director. I have confidence in that, as I hope the Parliament can. I understand the scepticism, because of what has gone before, but my job is to make sure that the plans can go forward, with confidence.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s update. Had the Tory internal market been in place, Ferguson Marine—and, indeed, Prestwick airport—would no longer be in business, due to the loss to the Parliament of state aid powers.

My constituents are keen to know not just when the Glen Sannox will be delivered, but when it will begin to serve the Ardrossan to Brodick route. Will the cabinet secretary advise?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The delivery of the MV Glen Sannox is planned for between April and June 2022. It will sail on the Ardrossan to Brodick route. As members know, that will relieve pressure elsewhere. It is important that we support that development—I know the importance of reliable ferries, including for tourism, which we need to get back on track.

We need to make sure that we have the ferries delivered on time, and not to forget that, although the work supports the yard and the jobs to which I referred, the purpose of the ferries is to support our island communities. I want to make sure that Arran, whose very vibrant economy is based on tourism, can return to that, with the support of the new ferry, and with the other support which has been taken forward by Fergus Ewing and the Scottish tourism recovery task force.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The workforce has already been badly let down by the Scottish Government. Will the cabinet secretary guarantee to protect the jobs and apprenticeships that she talked about in her statement? In the interests of transparency, will she also come clean on the total cost of the ferries and, given the length of time that communities have had to wait for those, will she now start planning the renewal of the rest of the fleet?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

That is a very important question. My colleague Paul Wheelhouse is looking at the development of future ferry services. That is important for going forward and looking to the future.

I have given the update on costs. The cost envelope has not changed, so we will be holding the yard to account on that.

On Rhoda Grant’s points on jobs, there has been an increase in the number of people who are employed at the yard, as detailed in the update report which I have published today—again, that should give confidence that there is a future there.

On skills, I reported the view of the yard that it wants to increase the number of apprentices—in particular, of graduate apprentices.

I hope that those explanations will reassure the member. I appreciate her question.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement. However, to my constituents, who await many replacement ferries, it is just more words. I appreciate of course the efforts of the workforce.

In preparation for the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee work on the issue tomorrow, the Scottish Parliament information centre produced a briefing, which states:

“It is worth noting that the loans provided by the Scottish Government to Ferguson Marine were not contractually linked to the ferry contract, as Scottish Ministers were not a party to the vessels contract or directly involved in the contract dispute”.

We are also told that CMAL did not know. However, ministers are responsible and accountable for public money in governance. The political oversight is the flaw in this whole sorry saga. Given that the delivery milestones were clearly not met, where was the loan funding spent?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

On the first set of loan funding, I refer the member, if he has not had a chance to read it—I am sure that all members of the REC Committee will have read it—to the written statement that was published on 12 August and sent to the committee. Paragraphs 137 and onwards of that statement talk about the commercial loans. The first commercial loans were to provide working capital to ensure that, as an account managed company, Ferguson’s had support for the continued work. He will also know, having studied this, that there were serious issues about cash flow for the company.

Paragraphs 139 and 140 set out what the different loans were for. The second loan was to ensure the stabilisation of the company and the development of the yard, and to enable the diversification into other contracts and markets that we would want to see. The full explanation that the member seeks is in the written statement that was provided to the committee. I remind members that my statement today is about the future and what has happened in the past six months but, obviously, there is the on-going committee inquiry, to which the member has referred.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sure that the minister accepts

that it is reasonable to ask questions about what is now a four-year delay to two ferries and the impact on long-suffering passengers. The Government orchestrated the ownership of the yard on two separate occasions. I know that the minister does not want to look back, but what lessons has she learned for the future from this episode of construction being over budget and delayed, and passengers waiting even longer?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I absolutely agree that there are lessons to be learned. That is why we welcome the inquiry that is taking place, which will look at the situation and how it developed.

Coming into post at this stage, I can reflect on some of the issues. Certainly there are issues around governance, and I am sure that the committee will make recommendations on that as part of its inquiry. I concluded that, given the public nature of Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow), it needs governance of the nature of a board. I have appointed that board since coming into post and its members are in place.

Many members, particularly REC Committee members, have visited the yard and have seen that some of the work has been out of sequence. I referred previously to issues such as build being produced potentially to meet milestones and therefore cash-flow payments—we know that cash flow has been an issue. Doing that on conceptual design, not on basic detailed design, is also an issue that should be looked at. There are undoubtedly a number of issues to be considered, but I hope that, as I said in my update report, we can focus on where the yard goes next.

Accountability is what the Parliament is about, and if the inquiry can give perspective and make recommendations on some areas, there will be lessons learned. However, what is most important is that we reflect on the fact that we have saved the yard and the jobs, and we are making sure that the ferries will be built. In other circumstances, had we taken different decisions, there would be no yard or jobs and those ferries would still not have been built.

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

As

the cabinet secretary appreciates, the delays to vessel 802 at Ferguson’s have been a source of frustration, if I may put it so understatedly as that, to my constituents in Harris and Uist. The vessel will be very welcome indeed, although as the cabinet secretary will appreciate, the vessel not of herself solve CalMac’s capacity problems. Can the cabinet secretary say more about the Government’s ferry procurement intentions beyond the two vessels currently being built at Ferguson’s?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I understand that my colleague Paul Wheelhouse will say more about that to the committee tomorrow, which the member will clearly have an interest in. We obviously know about the impact on communities of the delays in delivering the ferries, which I have referenced previously, and on the CalMac crews operating the existing fleet. That is a point that Mr Wheelhouse discussed with the unions last week. We continue to mitigate that impact with investment in fleet resilience. The member will be aware that the funds that we have made available have been reported on several times already to the Parliament. I reiterate that CMAL continues its search on the open market for any second-hand tonnage that might become available.

In addition, we are progressing with further investment plans on fleet replacement—the new Islay vessel is expected to go to tender early next year—and work is on-going on the vessel replacement and deployment plan, for which Mr Wheelhouse is responsible, as I said.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

The reality is that Scotland needs at least a dozen new vessels to service our island communities. Given that the first two new vessels are already nearly five years late, how confident can our island communities be that the Government will deliver on a pipeline of new ferries? Since the Scottish National Party Government took ownership of the yard, how many new contracts has it signed?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The yard has delivered on the ferries and vessels on which it has been contracted to deliver. As I said in my statement, it has also been approached for new work. On the demand for new vessels, Paul Wheelhouse is taking that issue forward as part of the vessel replacement and deployment plan, as I said.

As far as lessons are concerned, an issue that has come through loud and clear in all the evidence that I have seen is standardisation, which would help in relation to future procurement of vessels.

There are issues to do with whether we can embark on direct procurement. Throughout this period, we have been consistent in ensuring that, whatever the shape or form of the yard’s ownership, we are state aid compliant. The need for that applies to publicly owned companies as it does to other ownership models.

The member makes an important point: as part of our plans for the future, we need to make sure that we have the ferries that are required. Lessons that we can learn from the past, such as lessons on standardised design, will help.

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

The cabinet secretary knows that, under previous management, materials were stored off site in poor conditions, in an unmanned location. Will she say how the relocation of stock is going and whether the inventory and new stock control procedures are in place?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The member is reflecting on the serious concerns that there were before about the state of the inventory and where it was being held.

An inspection of the inventory started prior to the Covid lockdown, but it was considered that the inspection was not essential during that period. It has now restarted—I provided information about that in my update today. It is important that the inventory is secured in an improved state and that there is better stock control than there was previously.

The systemised project management approach will help in the delivery. The efficiency changes that I mentioned are set out in detail in the update report that was published today.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

This is a long-running saga, and a lesson that we should already have learned is that meaningful engagement with the workforce has been key to the transition to public ownership and to making progress with the vessels.

The interim board had worker representation, and GMB Scotland was disappointed that the cabinet secretary’s first act was to remove worker representation from the board. A workforce liaison committee is a blatant attempt to get round union representation. Have the cabinet secretary’s proposals for the board been negotiated with the recognised trade unions, or is the Government simply imposing its preferred way for workers to be represented? Are not the workers entitled to full board membership and to decide who represents them on the board?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I think that the member is confusing the project review board with the board of governance that I have established.

The project review board was brought in to ensure that we could plot the way forward so that there was a plan for when the turnaround director made the changes about which I have just updated the Parliament. The trade unions have been very supportive of the approach of the turnaround director and what has happened over the past six months.

On 9 July, I spoke to local trade union representatives and the GMB to explain the process of what will happen with the new board of governance and its terms. If trade union members were to be members of the board, they would have the associated fiduciary responsibilities and liabilities. Trade union representatives, as endorsed by the local workforce, will attend each meeting of the board to raise any issues that they want to raise. That is in addition to the workforce liaison committee, which will embrace a wider group of workers at the yard, not only those that are on the workforce of the yard itself. Depending on the choices that the workforce makes, those two groups might be made up of the same people.

I will continue that productive relationship with the workforce, and I hope that, in explaining the difference between the project review board and the board of governance, I have given the member a satisfactory answer to his enquiry.

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

As someone who project directed his first multimillion pound project—one of many—some 40 years ago, I note that inadequate project management appears to have been a primary factor leading to the commercial failure at Ferguson Marine. What steps can be taken to minimise the chance of such difficulties arising again, and what lessons in project management are there for other civil engineering projects, and other engineering products in general, that are placed by the Government?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The on-going committee inquiry will consider different issues, including project management. The member is correct to draw attention to that. Ferguson has contracted a team of specialist planners from Alliance Project Controls to upgrade its planning systems. It has introduced proper project planning controls into the work of the Ferguson team. Significant progress has been made and the yard will implement the new planning regime in September 2020. The introduction of project management systems is well under way, and credible monthly reports are now being produced. Ferguson has extensive process improvement work under way.

There are

seven disparate systems required to run the business, and the system integration task is a major challenge. A head of business improvement has been appointed to lead the implementation of the inventory control system that I referred to in answer to Maureen Watt’s question. That is another key change project. Process mapping is under way; that is designed to provide an effective quality management system with clear and understandable business processes.

I am sure that all Scottish businesses could learn lessons from Ferguson’s approach and what it has managed to do in the past few months.

Business Motion

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-22515, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a stage 3 timetable for the Children (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Children (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 4: 1 hour 10 minutes

Groups 5 to 7: 2 hours 5 minutes

Groups 8 to 11: 2 hours 40 minutes.—[

Graeme Dey

].

Motion agreed to.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I fully recognise that we have been discussing very important matters in the last moments. However, for the purposes of understanding what the likely conclusion time will be this evening, I note that business is now running over 30 minutes behind what the expected timings were. Can I take it that we will not now conclude business before 19:00?

The Presiding Officer

Mr Crawford, it is difficult to know at what time we will conclude. I allowed topical questions to run on today, both because there was a huge amount of interest and also partly to resolve the need for a statement on the subject of care homes. I am sure that members will appreciate that.

Although we were timetabled for an 18:30 decision time, our expectation was that we would run slightly under. Therefore, although we are now behind schedule, there is still a prospect of finishing at 18:30. I will be honest with you—it is up to members and ministers, because how long this item of business lasts depends on the length of their contributions. We should still aim for a 18:30 decision time, rather than 19:00.

Children (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Children (Scotland) Bill. Members should have before them the

bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list and the groupings. For the first division of the afternoon, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for a short technical break of five minutes or possibly slightly longer. That is the only technical break that we will have today; there will be no technical break at decision time.

The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. It will be one minute for the first division in any grouping after that, but 30 seconds for most divisions.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list.

The Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on the voice of the child. Amendment 8, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 35, 12 to 16, 31 and 48.

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The amendments in my name seek to strengthen the bill to ensure that the child’s views are heard in family court cases and children’s hearings. That is one of the key aims of the bill.

The amendments do two things. First, they reinstate

the requirement that children must be given an opportunity to express their views in relevant proceedings. That requirement was included in the bill on introduction but was partially replaced at stage 2 with a requirement for a decision maker only to seek to make reasonable arrangements for a child to express his or her views.

Secondly, the amendments ensure that, when a child’s views are sought, the child’s preferred method of giving their views is to be used unless it is not reasonable to do so or the child has not expressed a preferred method of giving their views. The amendments cover family court cases and other proceedings under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, children’s hearings, exclusion order proceedings and permanence and adoption cases.

I return to a point about exceptions that I made at stage 2. The Scottish Government believes that the majority of children are capable of forming a view on issues that affect them, but we recognise that that will not be true in every circumstance. For that reason, the bill provides that a decision maker is not required to seek or have regard to the view of a child if they are satisfied that the child is not capable of forming a view. However, the Government does not expect that exception to be used frequently.

There is also an exception to the requirement to take the child’s views in the child’s preferred manner, because it may not be feasible in some circumstances to use the child’s preferred method of giving their views. I would expect that exception also to be used infrequently.

I have recently published a paper on the ways in which a child can give their views, and I have committed, in the family justice modernisation strategy, to produce guidance for parties on going to court. That guidance will include information on the range of ways in which a child can give their views. We will need to reflect on how the strategy and the guidance are working in practice, so I welcome amendment 48, in the name of Liam McArthur, which requires a review of the impact of the act after five years. I ask members to agree to that amendment.

I am, however, unable to support amendment 35, in the name of Alex Cole-Hamilton. Amendment 35 would require a person who does not have parental rights and responsibilities but who is making a decision to safeguard the health, development or welfare of a child to seek and take account of the child’s views on maintaining personal relationships with family members. Even if the decision was unrelated to contact and residence—if it was about something like consent to a medical procedure—I cannot imagine that that is what the member intended. The bill makes provision requiring the views of the child to be considered in a variety of contexts, so it is entirely unclear why the member is seeking to make a change in that specific context only. Doing so would create inconsistency with the rest of the bill and inconsistency for children in how their views were obtained.

I reassure the member that the bill allows the views of children to be taken into account in a wide range of circumstances and that, where relevant to the decision or to the case in question, the child’s views of their wider family relationships will be sought and taken into account as part of the process.

In addition, the bill requires the court, when making an order under section 11(1) of the 1995 act, to have regard to the effect on the child’s important non-parental relationships. Therefore, I ask the member not to press amendment 35.

I move amendment 8.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

At stage 2, as the minister and members of the committee will recall, I did not move my amendments that sought to maintain the child’s right to maintain personal relationships with the child’s lineal ancestors. My constituents Gordon and Shonia-Maree Mason have done a lot of work on the rights of children to maintain contact with their grandparents. They and I listened to the arguments that were raised against the stage 2 amendments, including, notably, the argument that the bill does not specify grandparents in particular, as that would exclude other relationships, and the argument that the right of a child to have contact with their grandparents would have substantially the same implications as the right of a grandparent to have contact with their grandchildren.

We have taken those arguments into account and I have lodged an amendment to section 6 of the 1995 act, which is entitled “Views of children”. That section has already been amended at stage 2 of the bill. The proposed amendment clearly focuses on the child. It focuses on the maintenance of personal relationships with family members and is thus not restrictive. It makes no mention of grandparents and therefore cannot be construed as giving rights to grandparents, and it states that the action has to be practicable and in the best interests of the child.

Familial relationships can be beneficial to the child’s health, development and welfare—issues that are included in section 1 of the 1995 act, which is entitled “Parental responsibilities”. Section 6 of the 1995 act says that a parent must have regard to any views expressed by the child, and the amendment is intended to cover all situations in which the child wishes to express a view on familial relationships. Under the amendment, the child could, therefore, express a view at any time, even when their parent’s relationship was continuing and there was no referral to court proceedings under, say, section 11 of the 1995 act—in relation to which, uniquely, the family law unit this month issued a memorandum on the subject of children giving views.

That is one crucial and distinctive point of the amendment. A parent or parents in an on-going relationship who, through spite or a grudge or another non-justifiable reason, would not allow a child to maintain personal relations with a particular family member or members would still have to have regard to the views expressed by the child when the maintenance of such relationships was not against the best interests of the child. It is all about the views of the child—and only the child—at any time.

I have listened to the arguments of the minister, and I will listen to the views of Parliament. If there is not a majority for the measure today, I will withdraw the amendment. However, it is an argument that I will seek to return to in this place.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As I have done

throughout the committee stages of the bill, I begin by declaring an interest in that my wife is a director of Relationships Scotland Orkney. That is perhaps less relevant to this set of amendments, but I thought that it would be helpful to have it on the record at the outset.

At stage 2, I was pleased to get support from the committee for my amendment to create a duty on the Scottish ministers to ensure the availability of child advocacy services in section 11 cases. That followed powerful evidence that was heard by the committee about the need to strengthen the so-called infrastructure for taking children’s views. In their written submission, Dr Morrison, Dr Friskney and Professor Tisdall argued:

“The strongest and most consistent request from children and young people in Scotland, who have been involved in contested contact proceedings, it to have a child support worker. Without addressing this now, children’s participation throughout the legal process risks being dealt with inconsistently, on an ad hoc basis and thus marginalised. We recommend provision be put into primary legislation, with the ability to then link developments to other advocacy roles.”

That amendment was passed, but I held off pressing another amendment relating to a proposed review of children’s ability to participate in the decision-making process. Of course, reviewing legislation to check that it actually does what it is intended to do is generally a good and sensible precaution. However, given the concerns that have been expressed about the resourcing of the provisions in the bill, I think that there is a particular need to provide some reassurance to stakeholders that such a review will take place and will look specifically at whether it has facilitated the participation of children in decisions that are made about their future.

As Scottish Women’s Aid said ahead of stage 2, monitoring and review of the bill’s implementation is required to ensure that children’s rights are realised in practice. There was support for that at stage 2, although some concerns were expressed by the minister about the proposed three-year period—as opposed to a five-year period—in my amendment. I have reflected further on that and, although I remain a little concerned that five years opens up the risk of an entire session of Parliament coming and going before any assessment is made, I believe that amendment 48 provides safeguards against that happening. It is perhaps not perfect, but I am confident that colleagues in the next parliamentary session can and will keep ministers’ feet to the fire. In the meantime, I am grateful to the minister and her officials for their engagement on that issue.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I remind members that I am a practising solicitor and hold current practising certificates with the Law Society of Scotland and the Law Society of England and Wales.

With the exception of amendment 35, we will vote for all the amendments in group 1. Amendment 35 is clearly well intentioned, as were Alex Cole-Hamilton’s amendments throughout stage 2. However, I am not persuaded that, in reality, it would serve a child’s interests in the way that the member believes that it would. First, a key pillar of the bill is that it seeks to improve a child’s opportunities to provide their own views whenever possible. My concern is that, by emphasising the importance of the child’s views on their

“personal relations with family members”,

amendment 35 risks positioning those views as being more important than any other views that the child might wish to express. My second concern is that, as with other amendments at stage 2, I am not convinced that amendment 35 is necessary, given that section 12 of the bill already includes reference to consideration of the child’s “relationships with other people”.

Given those points, it appears that, at best, amendment 35 is unnecessary and, at worst, it risks creating what Children 1st and Scottish Women’s Aid described as

“an inappropriate ‘hierarchy’ of views”

that any given child might like to express. Therefore, I encourage Alex Cole-Hamilton to withdraw amendment 35. If he does not, we shall vote against amendment 35 but for the other amendments in the group.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

Scottish Labour will support all the amendments in group 1.

The Government amendments, lodged by Ash Denham, build on amendments that I lodged at stage 2 in order to give voice to the child’s views in a court hearing. The bill, as originally drafted, was a bit loose. The stage 2 and 3 amendments give more consistency, ensure that a child’s view can be heard and give weight to the mechanism that enables the child to express that view. Therefore, the amendments improve the bill overall.

With regard to Alex Cole-Hamilton’s amendment 35, throughout the process, some campaigners have argued for presumptions in favour of grandparents and shared parenting. I have not supported that approach throughout, but I recognise that the argument that Alex Cole-Hamilton makes in amendment 35 about the child’s views on which family members they wish to maintain contact with. We also support Liam McArthur’s amendment 48, because we believe that a review of children’s participation is essential. Five years is a reasonable timescale.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I support the Government’s amendments 8 and 12 to 16 and Liam McArthur’s amendment 48. As a member of the Justice Committee, I was clear from the get-go that the bill’s purpose was to put the interests and views of the child at the centre. The minister has listened to concerns that were raised in the committee, and most of the amendments tighten the bill up and—I hope—make it better legislation.

Alex Cole-Hamilton’s amendment 35 is well placed. We heard evidence on the issue during committee meetings. However, the minister’s amendments supersede it and take away any concerns that there might have been in that area, so I respectfully ask him not to press amendment 35.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I join other members in supporting all the amendments in the group, except for Mr Cole-Hamilton’s amendment 35, for many of the reasons that have been outlined. I recognise that refinement of the amendment has taken place between stages 2 and 3, but I align myself with the Scottish Women’s Aid and Children 1st briefing that has been alluded to, which speaks of the danger of establishing an “inappropriate hierarchy”, not least because, as the briefing tells us, many children have

“important relationships with other people outside their families”

and the amendment does not define a “family member”. It is important that all the views of the child are taken on board, and for that reason we will not support amendment 35.

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The bill already makes provision for the views of the child to be sought in a range of contexts, and it requires the court to take account of “the child’s important relationships” with people other than parents. That provision has been specifically designed so that it includes people such as grandparents. Alex Cole-Hamilton and I have discussed the issue at length, and I have no doubt that his proposal is well intentioned. However, I do not think that amendment 35 does what Alex Cole-Hamilton thinks it does. Therefore, I recommend that members do not support amendment 35. I note that that seems to be the consensus that has emerged during the debate.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Amendment 35 not moved.

The Presiding Officer

Group 2 is on matters to be considered in making an order under section 11(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. Amendment 9, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendments 10, 11 and 26.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendment 9 is a technical amendment, which would remove a definition that is no longer required in the bill.

Amendment 10 would amend new section 11ZA(3)(e) of the 1995 act. Instead of providing that the court should have regard to

“the effect of the fact that two or more persons would be required to co-operate with one another with regard to matters affecting the child”,

the section would instead require it to have regard to

“whether it is, or would be, appropriate for an order to require that two or more persons co-operate with one another with regard to matters affecting the child.”

The amendments relate to the protections under new section 11ZA, ensuring that, when making an order under section 11(1) of the 1995 act in the context of domestic abuse, the court must have regard to the impact of making an order requiring two or more persons to co-operate. My reason for promoting the amendments is that domestic abuse can continue to be perpetrated through the use of contact. The court must consider that before asking a survivor to co-operate with an abuser.

Amendment 11 would remove the definition of “person” in new section 11ZA(5), for the purposes of section 11ZA(3)(e). The effect of removing the definition is to require the court to consider whether it is appropriate to require any persons to co-operate with one another as part of an order under section 11 of the 1995 act, rather than consider only co-operation between the types of person mentioned in the definition. That would reflect that the parties to the case who are required by the order to co-operate may not necessarily be the parents. Removal of the definition of “person” in the context of amendment 11 would ensure wider judicial scrutiny of the order’s impact, beyond actions involving only those who are parents of the child in question, or who have parental rights and responsibilities.

We know from those using our specialist domestic abuse services that contact arrangements with family members such as grandparents can often be exploited by perpetrators of domestic abuse to further their abuse. Therefore, placing a duty on the courts to consider the appropriateness of co-operation beyond parents, in order to ensure that children and non-abusing parents are kept safe, would increase the protection afforded to survivors of domestic abuse.

I move amendment 9.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Amendment 26 seeks to make equally shared parenting the starting basis for custody orders, but it would not prevent courts from then deciding on the most appropriate split based on the circumstances of each case and, crucially, the best interests of the child.

The intention of amendment 26, which mirrors an amendment that I lodged at stage 2, is certainly not to make shared parenting mandatory; rather, it would require the court to start with that option if one of the parents requests it, before going on to consider any reasons why a different pattern is better for the child or children in question.

I remain firmly of the view that the legislation should do nothing that might dilute the primacy of the best interests of the child in any decisions that are taken on residency and access or on other considerations. I do not understand how requiring the courts to work from the presumption set out in amendment 26 would do that, as the court would still be free to reject that option, either immediately or in due course, depending on the circumstances and facts relevant to the case. Moreover, the presumption of shared parenting is one that exists in other countries that share our determination to prioritise the child’s best interests.

My amendment reflects the general benefits for children of shared parenting shown by international research, be that in terms of their social and psychological wellbeing, educational attainment or the avoidance of adverse experiences.

Of course such shared arrangements may not be practical or desirable, but given how rarely courts appear to rule in favour of an equal split in parenting responsibilities, it seems reasonable to ask whether there is already a presumption inherent in the system.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The member will be aware of the position that was adopted in relation to other matters in which it would be unhelpful to have a list. Is what he seeks to do not just part of a list? If we are acting exclusively in the best interests of the child, there would be no need to include that provision, because what applies will already depend on what is in their best interests.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

John Finnie is right to point to the evidence that we took and some of the considerations that we weighed up during stages 1 and 2.

As I said, given how rarely courts appear to rule in favour of an equal split of parenting responsibility, it seems reasonable to ask whether there are already presumptions in the system that have a bearing. If that is the case, we should acknowledge that, and satisfy ourselves as to whether that is any less detrimental to the principle of acting in a child’s best interests than starting from a presumption of shared parenting.

I am sure that, over recent weeks, we have all been contacted by constituents and others wanting to share the details of the fallout from their relationship breakdowns. None of that is pleasant—it can often be heartbreaking—but nor is it a matter on which we can safely take a definitive view. We cannot be sure that we have all the facts. Therefore, it must be left to the courts, supported by expert advice, with access to all the facts, to make a determination in the best interests of the child. However, why should those facts not be applied after starting from a presumption of shared parenting?

Society quite rightly expects relationships to be based on a more joined and shared parenting model than may have been the case in the past. That recognises not least the benefits to the child or children that come from such an approach. Why should it not be that we work from a similar starting point in the event of that relationship breaking down? Amendment 26 would allow that to happen.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am happy to vote for all the amendments in the group, with the exception of Liam McArthur’s amendment 26.

Again, I understand the motivation behind the amendment—of course we do—and the scenarios that Mr McArthur sets out. However, the welfare of the child is the key consideration. Therefore, in decisions regarding parental responsibilities, the only criterion should be what is in the best interests of that child. Having carefully listened to Mr McArthur’s comments, I know that he gets that. However, acting in the best interests of the child is the thread that weaves through the bill. The committee heard from representatives of Yello!, who said:

“Adults always seem to be given more priority than children, even though it is all supposed to be about the child. We hope that this Bill will change that.”

I worry that amendment 26 will move us away from that basic premise.

I also note the submissions from Children 1st and Scottish Women’s Aid, which are strongly opposed to amendment 26.

For those reasons, I will vote against the amendment.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow)

I support Rhoda Grant’s sensible amendments, which would bring more consistency to the bill as amended at stage 2. I, too, oppose Liam McArthur’s amendment 26. I understand why he lodged it. However, the issue for me is that, when having regard to a shared parenting order, what he proposes would potentially override the views of the child and what is best for them. We will not support the amendment.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I do not support amendment 26, because I consider that it could have adverse consequences for child safety.

In an ideal world, it is preferable for a child to have a happy relationship with both parents, where possible. However, we do not live in an ideal world, and including the provision in the bill would be unwise and possibly dangerous for a number of children.

All research on the matter suggests that a presumption of shared parenting in any high-conflict case is likely to be harmful to the child. A large number of contact cases that end up in court concern reports of domestic abuse, and even those that do not are still likely to be high-conflict cases, given the very fact that the court is involved.

The amendment proposes residence on an “equal basis” as the default solution in every case, unless otherwise agreed. I believe that that would cut across the rights of the child, and I do not believe that it would be in their best interest. We heard powerful evidence in committee from children on their experience of imposed contact, which was harrowing and distressing. Amendment 26 would mean that, on request from any parent, even one who might not be a party to a case, the court must consider ordering residence on an equal basis.

Of course parents should have an equal part in a child’s life, but we cannot prescribe a one-size-fits-all approach, which is the effect that the amendment would have. Every circumstance is different, and child protection is far too important to take risks with.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I want to express my sympathy for Liam McArthur’s amendment 26. Over the years, I have had many constituents and, in fact, others from outwith my constituency, one of whom worked at the Scottish Parliament at the time—mainly fathers, but occasionally mothers—tell me their story about how the courts had decided, and the children decided, that the children should have contact with both parents, but that contact had not actually happened.

It seems to me that there has been an imbalance in the court system. Although I have not been heavily involved in the bill, I believe that something has to change. I look to the minister to give us a reassurance that we are moving forward, that we will continue to move forward after the bill is passed and that we will see more cases where both parents have real input in the lives of their children.

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I support amendments 9, 10 and 11, and I am grateful to Rhoda Grant for the constructive engagement that we have had on the subject. Those amendments make technical changes to the provisions that she inserted at stage 2.

Where the court is considering making an order that requires two or more persons to co-operate, amendment 10 will require the court to consider

“whether it is, or would be, appropriate”

to require co-operation. That is wider than sections 11(7D) and (7E) of the 1995 act, and new section 11ZA(3) of that act, which was added at stage 2 of the bill. It meets one of the aims of the bill, which is to

“further protect victims of domestic abuse”,

including children.

Turning to amendment 26 in the name of Liam McArthur, I reassure members that my view is that both parents should be fully involved in a child’s upbringing, as long as that is in the best interests of the child concerned. Currently, parents can ask the court for residence on an equal basis, and a decision will be made in which the welfare of the child is paramount, taking into consideration the views of the child, and with full consideration being given to arguments for and against shared parenting in the particular circumstances of the case.

Amendment 26 proposes residence on an equal basis where requested as the starting point for the court to work from. In my view, that cuts across the approach of the 1995 act, which encourages the court to arrive at a solution that best promotes the welfare of each child, according to their individual circumstances.

The amendment refers only to parents. Although most cases of this nature are between parents, they do not have to be; for example, grandparents may apply for an order. Amendment 26 does not take account of the full range of circumstances that exist in these types of cases. It does not address the stage in the proceedings at which any request must be made, whether the parent requires to be a party to the proceedings or whether it might be open to parents to make repeated requests. In the absence of any attempt to govern the procedure by which such requests might be made, there is a considerable risk of delay in court proceedings with issues arising at a late stage.

A section 11 case might be about contact or about administration of a child’s property and not about residence. Therefore, it might not be appropriate for the court to consider residence in every case, as the court might not have the information necessary to allow it to decide on such questions. The courts already apply a general principle that it will be normally beneficial for children to have an on-going relationship with both parents. The bill strengthens this position by requiring the court to consider in every case the effect of an order on the involvement of the child’s parents in bringing the child up.

I do not consider that amendment 26 is desirable. It cuts across the general principle of section 11 of the 1995 act that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. Given those reasons, I ask Liam McArthur not to move amendment 26.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Members will all have dealt with cases in which contact has been used to perpetrate abuse, with disastrous consequences for the abused partner and their children. Even when the child is not abused, their experience of abuse is an adverse childhood experience that impacts on their mental health and self-esteem and damages their life chances. Therefore, there should be a presumption against contact of any kind with an abusive partner when we are looking at child contact.

I will press amendment 9, and I urge Liam McArthur not to move his amendment 26.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Amendments 10 and 11 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

Amendments 12 and 13 moved—[Ash Denham]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 3 is on the disclosure of information. Amendment 36, in the name of Liam McArthur, is grouped with amendment 46.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Amendment 36 and my more substantive amendment 46 respond to concerns that were raised with the committee at stage 1 that, at present, intimate and highly sensitive information that is shared by a child with a third sector organisation can be drawn into court proceedings. That appears to happen even when sharing such information goes against the interests of the child in question, and often without the child even knowing. It is not hard to see how that could fundamentally undermine the trust and confidence of children who engage with third-party organisations at a time when they are feeling vulnerable.

At stage 2, I successfully moved an amendment to address the concern, as did the minister. I am grateful to Ash Denham and her officials for the constructive way in which they have engaged with me since stage 2 to tidy up the provisions and make further necessary changes. The area is sensitive, and I recognise the concerns that the Government had in relation to my amendment at stage 2, notably around the use of the term “paramount consideration” and even some potential ambiguity over which child was being referred to.

I believe that my amendment 46 addresses those concerns, while retaining the core principles and protection that I and other committee colleagues sought to have enshrined in the bill. In particular, those are the inclusion of specific reference to

“the best interests of the child as a primary consideration”,

which is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and ensuring that a child has the opportunity to express their views to the court, which then needs to take those views into account when decisions are made about sharing their information.

In response to those who are anxious about the potential impact on the rights of others involved in any court process, I repeat the assurance from Children 1st and Scottish Women’s Aid that the changes

“will not prevent information from being shared where it is proportionate and relevant to the court.”

They went on:

“Indeed, our organisations strongly believe that proportionate and relevant information-sharing is in a child’s best interests to keep them safe and ensure the courts are equipped with all the details at their disposal to make informed decisions.”

I thank committee colleagues, the minister and of course Children 1st and Scottish Women’s Aid for helping to get us to this point. I hope that the changes will give children the confidence that they need and should have in their conversations with third sector organisations, which often take place at times of real vulnerability.

I move amendment 36.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We will vote against both amendments in the group. Amendment 36 is a function of amendment 46, so I will deal with the latter in depth. Our vote against amendment 46 will be based on a semantic point, which may be much more than that. The language used in the amendment is about considering the child’s “best interests”, as opposed to their welfare.

My understanding of this area of law is that what is referred to in, for example, the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 and the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007, what is commonly understood and what has had cases decided around it is the welfare of the child. Hitherto, welfare has been the touchstone, so why the change of language? I am grateful to Mr McArthur for his confirmation that the reason relates to the fact that the UNCRC talks about the best interests of the child, to which I shall return.

In any event, we risk importing new terminology without debate, scrutiny and test. Perhaps I am making a mere semantic point. There might be no difference between the best interests and the welfare of a child but, if that is right, we should not introduce new wording. We should stick with the current wording, because a change at least opens the door to the argument. That cannot be desirable.

On the other hand, what if the terms mean something different? What if “best interests” and the “welfare of a child” are different in law and in practice? We need to be very careful to understand what those changes would mean on a practical level before codifying that in black-letter law.

The safest path is to vote against amendments 36 and 46. I plead, as further authority, that minister Maree Todd confirmed on 4 May that the Government still intends to introduce the UNCRC bill this year. No doubt there will be consultation on the bill and, I presume, on the meaning of “best interests”. Let us take the precautionary principle and wait until then. I shall vote against amendment 46.

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I support amendments 36 and 46. I am grateful to Liam McArthur for the constructive engagement that we have had on the subject, and I am pleased that a consensus position has been reached. I hope that members will join me in supporting the amendments today.

Two competing amendments were lodged to the bill at stage 2. Amendments 36 and 46 remedy the issue by removing sections 1A and 13A from the bill and inserting a new section in their place. The amendments retain elements from, and improve on, each of the sections that were added to the bill at stage 2.

Amendment 46 provides that when the court

“has to decide whether a person should have access to anything in which private information about a child is recorded”,

it

“must regard the best interests of the child as a primary consideration.”

As Mr Kerr noted, the references to “best interests” and “primary consideration” reflect the language of article 3.1 of the UNCRC and the approach that is taken in general comment 15. The use of the words “primary consideration”, as is proposed, achieves a more appropriate balance of rights than was achieved by section 1A.

The amendments go further than section 13A by requiring that the views of the child should be sought using the manner that is preferred by the child. I appreciate that there might be some cases in which that will not be possible in the best interests of the child, although I expect the exemptions to be used only infrequently.

The amendments offer wider protection than was offered by section 1A, which appeared to protect only the child at the centre of the section 11 proceedings. I reassure members that I am already progressing work to ensure that children are informed of how the information that they disclose to a child welfare reporter might be used. Earlier this summer, I shared with key stakeholders a draft of the guidance for children on speaking to child welfare reporters. Once I have a finalised version of the guidance, I will publish it and make it available to children and young people.

I hope that members will join me in supporting amendments 36 and 46, which constitute an important protection for the rights of children whose private information may be used in contact and residence proceedings.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I thank the minister for her support and her explanation of the basis for it. I thank Liam Kerr for his comments and for engaging in debate on my amendments. I would never accuse him of semantics. To some extent, the language that is used in my amendments is similar to the language that was used in the amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I do not recall his concerns being raised at that stage. The minister has set out the consistency of approach that has been taken. It is difficult to see how a child’s best interests would not be observed by any measure that adhered to the child’s welfare. The language is embedded in the UNCRC.

I take the point that a fuller integration of the UNCRC into Scots law is proposed, but that is not a justification for kicking the can down the road where there is an opportunity to embed the provision in this bill. Those who gave evidence to the committee were clear about the importance of doing so, not least—as I said earlier—to safeguard the confidence of children and young people in, and their engagement with, third sector organisations at a time of real vulnerability for them. For those reasons, I will press amendment 36.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the afternoon, I will suspend proceedings and we will have a short technical break, not only to summon members to the chamber, but to ensure that members who are participating online are on board the system in order to vote.

16:05 Meeting suspended.

16:15 On resuming—

Colleagues, we are going to resume proceedings. We are on group 3, on disclosure of information, and Liam McArthur has moved amendment 36. Members indicated that there will be a division.

The question is, that amendment 36 be agreed to. Members may cast their votes now, and they should refresh their screens if they are logged out.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 86, Against 30, Abstentions 1.

Amendment 36 agreed to.

Jenny Gilruth has a point of order. [

Inaudible.

] Can Ms Gilruth indicate to the chamber which way she voted? [

Inaudible.

] The vote was overwhelming in favour, but Jenny Gilruth’s vote has now been noted for the record.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not able to vote either.

The Presiding Officer

Would you like to indicate which way you were going to vote?

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I was going to vote in favour of the amendment.

The Presiding Officer

Clare Haughey also voted yes.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Members

Oh!

The Presiding Officer

It is important at this stage. Let us hear Mr McMillan, please.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

It is the same situation for me. I would have voted for the amendment.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you. That has also been noted for the record

.

From now on, we will not have a technical break unless there is widespread disapproval and people are not able to vote. It is important that members keep their screens open and refreshed; if the window goes away, members should log back in and refresh the screen, and it should come back on again. Members have the code and should be able to vote; it is now up to members to be able to use the system.

I will also add for the record that Rachael Hamilton, who has been joining us remotely, was unable to vote, and she wanted to vote against the amendment.

Section 2—Proceedings under Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007

Amendments 14 and 15 moved—[Ash Denham]—and agreed to.

Section 3—Proceedings under Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011

Amendment 16 moved—[Ash Denham]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 4 is on vulnerable witnesses and vulnerable parties. Amendment 37, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 38 and 39.

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Amendments 37 to 39 seek to provide further protection to vulnerable parties in evidential and non-evidential hearings in particular child welfare hearings, and to vulnerable witnesses when a case under section 11 of the 1995 act reaches proof.

When a person is deemed to be a vulnerable witness by virtue of section 11B of the Vulnerable Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2004 as inserted by section 4 of the bill, amendment 37 will require the court, before the proof or any other hearing at which the witness is to give evidence, to make an order authorising the use of a special measure or to make an order that the witness is to give evidence without the benefit of a special measure. That will ensure that consideration of special measures does not depend on the party lodging a vulnerable witness application or the court considering the matter of its own volition.

A party may be deemed to be a vulnerable witness if there is in force a non-harassment order, an interdict or any similar order or remedy that has been granted by a court that prohibits certain conduct towards the person by a party to the proceedings; if a “relevant offence” has been committed against the person and a party to the proceedings has been convicted of committing it; or if a party to the proceedings is being prosecuted for committing a “relevant offence” against the person.

Where a party would meet the criteria to be deemed to be a vulnerable witness if they were to give evidence, amendment 38 will require the court to order the use of any special measure that the party requests, or to order the use of a special measure that the court considers appropriate and explain why the preferred method is not being used, or give reasons for not ordering the use of special measures. Special measures can include the use of screens, giving evidence by live videolink and having a support attending with a party.

Amendment 39 is a consequential amendment to remove the now superfluous reference to

“in relation to a party”

from the vulnerable party provisions.

If amendments 37 to 39 are agreed to, I propose to work with stakeholders such as Scottish Women’s Aid in preparing a policy paper for the Scottish Civil Justice Council’s family law committee on any changes to court rules that might be necessary. The amendments build on provisions in sections 4 and 5 of the bill in relation to prohibition of personal conduct of a case and vulnerable parties in child welfare hearings. I hope that members across the chamber will agree with me that it is important to ensure that vulnerable parties and witnesses are protected.

I move amendment 37.

Amendment 37 agreed to.

Section 7—Vulnerable parties

Amendments 38 and 39 moved—[Ash Denham]—and agreed to.