Scottish Parliament, 7 October 2020

300 contributions from 71 members. The official report.

Rural Economy and Tourism

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

Good afternoon. Before we start business, I remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and across the Holyrood campus, so please take care to observe those measures during this afternoon’s business, including when entering and exiting the chamber.

The first item of business is portfolio question time. If a member wishes to request a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button or, if they are joining us remotely, they should indicate that in the chat function by entering the “R” during the relevant question.

Ayrshire Tourism Recovery Plan (Digital Technology)

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

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it will take forward a tourism recovery plan for Ayrshire, and what role it believes digital technology can play in assisting with this. (S5O-04657)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The Scottish tourism recovery task force will publish its recommendations imminently. In the context of those, we will consider what actions are required at national and regional levels. Any actions will build on our £103 million investment through the Ayrshire growth deal and our programme for government commitment to promote Ayrshire as a tourism destination. Through that, we are investing £1 million in tourism developments, including the establishment of the Còig, which is an industry body that is using digital marketing technologies to work more closely with the private and public sectors to encourage more visits to the area.

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

The cabinet secretary will be aware of some of the new ideas for using digital technology that have emerged out of necessity during the current health emergency, such as online ordering of food for delivery by restaurants and shops, online performances by musicians and even online broadcasting of and participation in the Parliament. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that digital solutions can play a big part in helping to enhance the tourist experience, with more online content and interactions offering a high-quality experience for visitors to Scotland that might not be possible in person but is possible using digital technology?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I agree that digital technology has come to the fore during Covid, perhaps through necessity—as we are using it, right now. It has enabled people who are adept in its use to develop different methods of entertainment, information and education, and of promotion of our tourism economy. I think that such use of technology will play a part in the future, as Mr Coffey advocates.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the huge effect that Covid-19 has had on bed and breakfast numbers, hotel bookings and visitors to Ayrshire. What further measures can be taken to support the sector in Ayr, Prestwick and Troon, given that the proposed development of the Còig makes little difference to South Ayrshire?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Mr Scott raises an important point. Bed and breakfasts are an important segment of accommodation provision in the tourism sector, and we value their work. In the earlier period of Covid lockdown, we endeavoured to ensure that there was reasonable access to financial support for people with bed and breakfast businesses who are dependent on the business for their livelihoods. That was part of an overall package of £2.3 billion. The support was intended to provide a lifeline to businesses to help them through Covid but, as Mr Scott perhaps implies, Covid has gone on for longer than any of us wished.

Therefore, it is now sensible for the UK Government to reconsider what more needs to be done to promote, protect and rescue tourism around these islands.

I will not go into the details, because that would take too much time, but I advocate that the UK Government work in partnership with us to help businesses such as bed and breakfasts to survive Covid, which is going on longer than anyone would have expected or wished.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I draw members’ attention to the fact that question 1 has taken an overly long time. We will not come close to getting through the questions unless members bear in mind the need to be a bit more succinct.

Tourism (North East Scotland)

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what support is available for major projects in the north-east to drive the area’s tourism sector. (S5O-04658)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The Scottish Government and its agencies continue to support projects to boost tourism in the north-east of Scotland through the Moray growth deal and Aberdeen city region growth deal, through the rural tourism infrastructure fund and, in the case of Lossiemouth east beach footbridge, directly.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Aberdeen harbour project will be a key driver of tourism to the north-east, not least because of the intended cruise ship capacity. However, in July, we learned that its construction has been delayed until 2022. What discussions has the cabinet secretary had with the project to identify what it needs? What support will be made available to ensure that the project is completed by the new date?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The member is correct to say that the Aberdeen harbour project is a major project. Some years ago, when I was energy minister, I had the pleasure of visiting the harbour, meeting the project sponsors and discussing the exciting project with them.

Aberdeen harbour is a trust port that is run by an independent board for the benefit of its stakeholders. The issue does not fall directly within the purview of my portfolio, but I know that the Scottish Government is in fairly close contact with the sponsors of the project. It is true that it has been delayed, but I am hopeful and confident that those delays will be overcome. I am told that the project might be completed as early as next year, which would bring substantial benefits to Aberdeen and the north-east economy generally.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Given that the V&A Dundee has been a transforming investment for the north-east’s attractiveness as a visitor destination, can the cabinet secretary confirm what investment the Scottish Government has made in the V&A? What role does the Scottish Government consider that museums will play in the recovery of our tourism economy?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The Scottish Government has been substantially supportive of the project in financial terms, and a stalwart supporter of it from the beginning. Shona Robison has been an advocate for the benefits of the project since its inception and has seen it through. An excellent attraction has been delivered for the citizens of Dundee.

I think that the V&A has helped to embed further the reputation of Dundee as the city of discovery and much more—not just in the eyes of Scotland but further afield—and to highlight the key role that it plays in the areas of design and innovation. It has been an outstanding project, which the Scottish Government has supported handsomely.

Crofting (New Entrants)

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

3. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to encourage new entrants to crofting. (S5O-04659)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Last year, there were 458 new entrants into crofting. The Scottish Government has a range of support available to potential new entrants. Our croft house grant and the crofting agricultural grant scheme, which is known as CAGS, remain accessible, and our Farm Advisory Service continues to offer advice and mentoring services to crofters.

On 8 July this year, I announced £325,000 of additional funding for the Crofting Commission to expand crofting development activities and to create new commission jobs in the Western Isles, in Dr Allan’s constituency, after substantial lobbying—not least by Dr Allan—for dispersal of such employment. In addition, as is mentioned in the programme for government, we have committed to extending the work of the Scottish Land Matching Service to increase crofting opportunities for new entrants.

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

I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply. Does he share my concern about the rising asking prices for many croft tenancies? That is a particular issue in areas that are suffering from depopulation. For example, a croft tenancy in my constituency was advertised recently with the staggering asking price of £200,000. Although that is an extreme example, it illustrates how inflated the market sometimes is. If young families are priced out of crofting, that will threaten the islands’ sustainability and culture. Is there more the Scottish Government feels that it can do to address that issue?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Yes—and I know that my colleagues Aileen Campbell and Kevin Stewart are extremely active in considering with local authority and other local partners the provision of more housing. In addition to that, in my area, the Scottish Government has approved croft house grant payments of more than £21 million to help to build and improve over 1,000 croft homes.

A

lthough that is welcome, it does not directly address the problems that Dr Allan has correctly identified, so the Crofting Commission is increasing its work to enforce crofters’ adherence to duties, in some cases leading to assignation of a croft, on its sale, to a new entrant.

The wider problem of price inflation is an extremely serious one, and a wide variety of measures are required to tackle it. I am very pleased to say that the Scottish Government is dealing with and implementing a lot of those.

Sheep Farming (United Kingdom Trade Deals)

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the reported concerns of the National Sheep Association that the future trade deals with Australia and New Zealand negotiated by the UK Government could negatively impact Scotland’s sheep farmers. (S5O-04660)

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

A

trade agreement with both parties would create significant challenges for the UK agriculture sector, and specifically Scottish sheep farmers, as we and stakeholders regularly point out. At a time when the sheep sector stands to lose tariff-free access to the European market for a third of its product, there is a threat that additional Australian and New Zealand lamb being imported into the UK market will further undercut Scottish producers.

Even the UK Government expects the economic benefits to the UK from those deals to be minuscule. We need it to live up to its promises about maintaining standards for imports.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The Scottish Farmer

has reported

Phil Stocker of the NSA warning that Antipodean free trade deals will result in our market being flooded with cheap meat that was produced at lower environmental and animal welfare standards. Does the minister agree that that is completely unacceptable, particularly as our hard-pressed sheep farmers could also lose the European market, which accounts for 30 to 40 per cent of their sales?

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

I absolutely agree with Joan McAlpine and the comments that she referenced from Phil Stocker. Our sheep farmers have very little to look forward to when we leave the European Union. They will face tariff as well as non-tariff barriers to trade, as well as an increasing pressure from the trade agreements with two of the largest sheep meat exporters: Australia and New Zealand.

It is important to remember that, in the event that no free trade agreement is reached between the UK and the EU, tariffs of around 40 to 50 per cent will be applied to Scottish sheep meat that is destined for EU consumers. Scottish sheep meat producers export around £400 million-worth of products each year, with 88 per cent of the exports destined for European consumers, so this has the potential to be catastrophic for the industry.

It is not just the Scottish Government that is raising how damaging this could be. The UK Government’s own economic modelling suggests that the Scottish agriculture sector is likely to be adversely impacted by any free-trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand.

In addition to all of that, there has still been no confirmation of the Brexit costs from the Treasury, which Michael Gove previously promised.

Kent Access Permit Scheme

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what impact it expects on Scotland’s rural economy and Scottish producers’ ability to export their goods of the proposed Kent access permit scheme. (S5O-04661)

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

I

t is quite simply lamentable that we are now having to prepare to face Brexit’s consequences, such as huge delays to exporting through Kent. We have continually raised concerns about the impact of operational barriers and the United Kingdom Government has only recently proposed that solution.

It has consulted on traffic management for the Kent area and proposed the system for hauliers to check that they are ready to cross the border, which would be mandatory for hauliers entering Kent. However, the UK Government has yet to publish the outcome of that consultation and it is not clear whether it intends to share those outcomes with us and the other devolved nations ahead of publication.

However, following sustained pressure from the Scottish Government, the new proposals envisage a system of prioritising hauliers carrying live and fresh produce such as Scottish seafood. Although it remains to be seen how such prioritisation will work in practice, it should help to ensure that our exporters have at least a chance of being able to reach European Union markets in time.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be aware of the UK Cabinet Office scenario of 7,000 lorries held for up to two days, and delays. That is completely unacceptable for high-value, perishable goods such as seafood and live fish. Can the minister rigorously pursue clarity on the outcome of that consultation with what I readily accept is a non-co-operative UK Government and examine opportunities for the Scottish Government to assist and promote the speedy carriage of those time-sensitive goods by rail freight to reach continental markets?

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

Absolutely. I can assure John Finnie that that is something that the Scottish Government has continually pursued over the past three years, throughout the Brexit process, and, of course, it is something that we continue to pursue. We absolutely recognise that it is vital for the seafood industry in Scotland, and the transport secretary met the Road Haulage Association recently.

As much as the UK Government tells us that it is geared up and ready for the change, we are getting quite a different message from the industry. It has outlined its serious concerns that the processes and information technology systems will not be ready in time, by the end of the year. For our part, I can assure the member and members across the chamber that the Scottish Government will be doing absolutely everything in our power to support our industries.

Covid-19 (Impact on Arran Economy)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Fraser of Allander institute report, “The Impact of Covid-19 on the Arran economy”, including its comments on how this has affected tourism. (S5O-04662)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I agree that the situation is concerning. We know that Covid-19 continues to have a profound impact on our island communities. We are currently working closely with our partners, including North Ayrshire Council, Taste of Arran and the Arran economic group.

I do not underestimate the impacts and I understand that a tailored approach will be necessary. Our £30 million pledge to deliver the national islands plan and our new £2 million islands green recovery programme will be vital in stimulating new economic activity across our islands, helping businesses recover from the impacts of the pandemic and creating new high-quality jobs.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The report states that—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Excuse me, Mr Gibson. We are finding it difficult to hear you, which is, of course, unusual. Could you put your microphone up, please?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I apologise for that, Presiding Officer.

The report states:

“on average, each day of ferry operation contributes just under £170,000”

to Arran’s economy. That is just more than £62 million a year. How can the Scottish ministers optimise the ferry service at this difficult time? Can the cabinet secretary go even further than he has already gone in supporting island businesses, to ensure that Arran’s economy survives and can ultimately thrive?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I absolutely agree that the ferry is essential to Arran. It is a lifeline service and the gateway for everybody who visits the island. It is a marvellous tourism offering and there have been real difficulties over the Covid period. Businesses have been facing constraints during lockdown and beyond. Mr Gibson is absolutely right to say that we need to ensure that the ferry service is reliable, and we need to look to the future to see what more we can do for the service. As the Fraser of Allander institute recognises, the Arran economy is extremely different from the North Ayrshire economy. I know that Mr Gibson, who has been a forthright advocate for Arran over the years, will continue to ensure that the arguments are kept to the fore.

Sustainable Agriculture Capital Grant Scheme

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how much of the sustainable agriculture capital grant scheme funding has been allocated. (S5O-04663)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The £10 million sustainable agriculture capital grant scheme opened for applications on 7 September this year, and the application window is due to run for a period of five weeks, closing on 11 October. The applications will then be assessed and grant award letters will be issued thereafter.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will, of course, be aware of the value and importance of that funding to those who have struggled as a result of rural crime. We know that the cost of rural crime to our farmers has risen to £2.3 million and that rural crime has more than doubled since 2017. I am sure that that is a concern to all of us. What conversations is the cabinet secretary having with his justice counterparts to ensure that we tackle rural crime and that his department is offering everything that it can—financially or otherwise—to farmers who have struggled as a result of rural crime?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

Jamie Greene has raised a very important point, which I have pursued rigorously as cabinet secretary alongside my colleagues in the Cabinet and in working with the police and others on despicable crimes that cause enormous difficulty to farmers. By the very nature of those crimes—they sometimes occur under dead of night in rural Scotland—evidence is very difficult to establish in many cases, given the lack of eyewitnesses. I have pursued that issue rigorously for a very long time.

I gently point out to Mr Greene that that issue is not relevant to the question that was asked, which was about the agricultural transformation programme, the purpose of which is primarily to assist farmers and crofters in respect of sustainable agriculture and which looks in particular to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That programme has nothing to do directly with crime. However, I have no objection to answering a question that is irrelevant to the primary question.

Hospitality Restrictions (Impact on Supply Chain)

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what financial analysis it has carried out of the impact that restrictions on the hospitality sector will have on the wider supply chain. (S5O-04664)

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

The measures that have been introduced for the hospitality sector have, like those in other sectors, been driven by the need to protect public health and drive down transmission of the virus. However, economic concerns are important, and they have, where possible, been balanced in the decision-making process through the four-harms approach that the Scottish Government has adopted, which takes account of direct and indirect health impacts, societal impacts and economic impacts.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I draw members’ attention to my resignation—[

Laughter

.] I meant to say my register of members’ interests entry.

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, restrictions have had a detrimental effect on the hospitality supply chain—especially breweries, merchants, laundry services and wholesalers. Businesses want answers and certainty. Will the cabinet secretary commit to publishing in full the data and scientific evidence behind decisions that have been made for the restrictions put in place today, which may be the death knell for the hospitality industry?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness and Nairn)

I am very pleased to hear that Rachael Hamilton is not resigning. We can therefore continue to work together on tourism interests.

I am very happy to assure and inform

Rachael Hamilton that I have worked very closely with the Scottish Wholesale Association, for example, to ensure that, in so far as possible, financial assistance has been available to some of its members. As Rachael Hamilton correctly said, they are a vital part of the jigsaw in the supply chain to many businesses in tourism and the wider rural economy.

The Scottish Government has provided £2.3 billion of assistance. Every day, I am involved, correctly, in calls, discussions, engagements and videolinks with the tourism industry. Every day, we do our best to assist it and work hard with it. I know how it is suffering. It is a shame that the United Kingdom Government refuses to extend the furlough, which has provided an absolute lifeline for many people in Scotland. It is not too late for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider that imprudent decision, which is likely to cost so many people in Scotland their jobs.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes questions on the rural economy and tourism portfolio. I apologise to those members I was unable to call to ask supplementary questions because of the time that members are taking for questions and answers. I ask both members and ministers to bear that in mind in the next portfolio section, so that we can get through all the questions.

Transport, Infrastructure and Connectivity

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The next item of business is portfolio questions on transport, infrastructure and connectivity. If members wish to ask a supplementary question, I ask them please to press their request-to-speak button or, if they are joining us remotely, the R button.

Port of Cairnryan (Post-Brexit Improvements)

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding changes to infrastructure and consequent improvements to the region’s arterial routes that will be required for the port of Cairnryan after the Brexit transition period ends. (S5O-04665)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Scottish Government officials have been engaging with the UK Government on how the end of the transition period could impact on the ports, but plans are vague and, even now, many questions remain unanswered by the UK Government.

The lack of clarity about import and export processes under the Northern Ireland protocol is undermining our ability to meet infrastructure and operational readiness requirements. However, we are progressing our appraisal of the potential transport interventions that will contribute most to the national transport strategy, including the 23 recommendations from the South West Scotland transport study, some of which relate to A75 and A77 improvements.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I raised the issue of Cairnryan at the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee earlier today, and it is concerning that there is a lack of clarity around what is happening with that port. Given that the port is on a strategic route for Ireland and the south-west of Scotland, can the cabinet secretary outline what impact he expects the lack of planning, combined with the need for checks at the border, to have on movement through Cairnryan and its surrounding arterial routes, the A75 and the A77?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Emma Harper raised that matter with me at the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee meeting. I can say, and it is important for members to recognise, that, as yet, the UK Government has not confirmed—indeed, it has not agreed with the European Union—what checks will be required between Northern Ireland and Scotland. We do not want to introduce new controls, but we have a responsibility to inspect certain commodities and we are engaged with the UK Government to try to get the necessary preparations under way.

The port is adjacent to the strategic road network that provides access to the rest of the UK. Nonetheless, we are considering enhancements for the A75 and A77. We will continue to pursue the matter with the UK Government, but the lack of clarity over the arrangements that need be put in place at Cairnryan is a very serious concern. It is absolutely critical that we get clarity on that sooner rather than later.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Has the Scottish Government analysed the potential cost to the Scottish economy of the loss of business that is already happening on the port of Cairnryan to Belfast route as businesses migrate to the Dublin-Heysham-Liverpool route, due to the poor road and rail infrastructure in the south-west of Scotland?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

It is clear that the Government is committed to looking at further infrastructure investment in the south-west of Scotland, as set out in the south-west Scotland transport study. I do not think that it befits anyone who is elected to represent the south-west of Scotland to talk down the existing infrastructure in that area.

The member can be absolutely sure that our priority is not to have a six-lane M8, but to make sure that we get the right infrastructure in areas such as the south-west of Scotland, and that is what we are committed to doing.

Superfast Broadband (Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the provision of superfast broadband in the Strathkelvin and Bearsden constituency. (S5O-04666)

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The latest figures produced by Ofcom show that 97 per cent of premises in Strathkelvin and Bearsden can already access a superfast broadband connection. Our reaching 100 per cent programme will ensure that every home and business can access superfast broadband by the end of 2021. That commitment will be delivered through the R100 contracts for north, central and south Scotland; our Scottish broadband voucher scheme; and commercial deployment in the Strathkelvin and Bearsden area.

Ms Mackay’s constituents will benefit either through commercial deployment or through our investment. Our online checker can show people when they might expect work to connect their premises to begin.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

My constituents in Baldernock have been patiently waiting for a fibre broadband connection for many years and are finally on course to receive it. However, there have been delays due to incorrect data being collected, and data collection is crucial in the R100 procurement stages. Can the minister confirm, with some urgency, whether that issue has been looked at, in order to allow households to take advantage of the voucher scheme and finally get connected?

Paul Wheelhouse (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Ms Mackay raises an important matter, and I know that emails have been exchanged about it during the past week. The status report in our online checker is informed by data that is sourced from commercial providers. That data is then cross-checked against other data sources to ensure consistency, before it is reflected in our online address checker.

There are agreed monitoring plans in place, and regular updates are received from broadband providers throughout the year. Any change is reflected in the online checker. In a dataset of more than 2.8 million premises, however, we can expect that there might be some discrepancies, as is the case in Baldernock.

I reassure Ms Mackay that the R100 team is speaking to the community council and broadband providers in the area to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. She should rest assured that any premises that find themselves outside the coverage of a commercial provider can get superfast broadband through the R100 Scottish broadband voucher scheme. I look forward to keeping in touch with Ms Mackay on the matter.

Sheriffhall Roundabout Upgrade (Review)

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

3. To ask the Scottish Government when the conclusion of the review of the upgrade to the Sheriffhall roundabout will be published. (S5O-04667)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The review work that is being undertaken on Sheriffhall forms part of our statutory responsibility to fully consider objections and representations that are received on the proposed scheme. I understand that Transport Scotland recently held a productive workshop with officials from the various city region deal partners, and that the review work has developed sufficiently to progress the resolution of objections.

The conclusion of the review will be shared in due course, as we continue to take forward the statutory process for the scheme.

Michelle Ballantyne (Conservative, South Scotland)

As the cabinet secretary will know, councils across the south-east of Scotland are dealing with rapidly rising populations. They are sticking to their end of the deal by building more affordable homes, but they are being let down when it comes to access to Edinburgh. We need development at Sheriffhall, and we need it urgently.

I understand that the funding for the upgrade is already in place. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether any deal has been done to delay or stop the development? Can he say that there will not be a delay to the scheme once he gets the results of the review, and can he start to give a firm date for when the ground will be broken at Sheriffhall?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

There are several different issues there. The first answer is no, there is no plan to stop the project. We are still very much committed to it. It represents £120 million of investment and forms part of the south-east Scotland city region deal, which we are progressing.

The review is looking at the feasibility and desirability of enhancing active travel and public transport infrastructure in the project—that is where there is a specific focus. The need to do that is reflected in the statutory process that has to be undertaken. Where objections are received—and there have been objections—we have to try to address them. If we cannot get the objections removed, the matter will go to a public local inquiry. All that determines the timescale for delivery of the project.

There is a statutory process that we have to undertake. Part of that process gives landowners, residents and businesses the opportunity to make objections, and those have to be taken seriously and considered. That is exactly what is happening at this point. Once that statutory process has concluded, the timeframe for the completion of the project can be set.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Christine Grahame has a short supplementary.

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

The cabinet secretary’s colleague, the finance secretary, told Parliament yesterday that the delay to the United Kingdom Government’s budget will of necessity mean that the Scottish Government’s budget for next year will be provisional and that the uncertainty will run to billions of pounds. Will the UK budget delay and the knock-on effect for the Scottish Government’s budget impact on the timetable for improvements to the Sheriffhall roundabout, which is otherwise known to cyclists as “the meat blender”?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

There is serious concern about whether, if there are delays to setting the budget, that could have an impact on a range of projects that are being undertaken or are planned. That is why it is critical that the UK Government recognises the importance of giving clarity to the Scottish Government about its budgetary requirements.

Alongside that, during the past week, the union connectivity review was announced, which shows the UK Government’s desire to start to set project priorities for transport in Scotland, with the apparent intention to almost cut part of our capital spending allocation so that it can be reprioritised to be spent in the areas that the UK Government sees as priorities. That is the type of power grab that we have become accustomed to from the UK Government, and it could have an effect on the very project that Christine Grahame has referred to, and that Michelle Ballantyne has said is critical to the Edinburgh economy. That is the type of short-sightedness that we have got used to from the UK Government on such matters.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Question 4 is from Johann Lamont. [

Interruption

.] Excuse me. We are now on question 4. Question 3 is over, so can members please stop shouting across the chamber?

I call Johann Lamont.

Face Coverings on Public Transport (Glasgow)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow)

4. It is usually me who gets a row for shouting. It is nice to be on the other side, Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with transport operators in Glasgow regarding compliance with the wearing of face coverings on public transport. (S5O-04668)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Transport Scotland is in regular dialogue with transport operators who have been reminded, as per Scottish Government guidance, that they are expected to consider displaying prominent signage highlighting that face coverings must be worn and also that their staff may make inquiries of a passenger who is not wearing a face covering and remind them of their legal obligation to do so, unless they are exempt. Transport Scotland officials continue to monitor levels of compliance with the legislation, in conjunction with operators. The guidance and the legislation remain under review.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow)

I

n recent weeks, there have been several reports of a significant number of people not wearing masks on buses. Just last week, FirstBus contacted every school in Glasgow over concerns that a significant number of pupils were flouting the rules, a situation that is

“putting drivers’ lives at risk”.

Given that concern, will the minister make a commitment to engage with transport operators in Glasgow, Police Scotland, Glasgow City Council and all the relevant agencies to ensure both that enough support is in place to protect drivers and allow them to operate safely, and that all passengers are aware of and co-operate with the national guidance?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Johann Lamont raises an important issue. I recognise the concerns that she has expressed, which is why we have regular dialogue with transport operators to make sure that they are reinforcing the message that people need to wear face coverings.

Johann Lamont mentioned school pupils. That issue was identified a number of weeks ago when the schools returned after the summer holidays. At that point, we took proactive action by engaging directly with local authorities to make sure that they were communicating the need for school pupils to wear face coverings when they are on public transport and at particular locations. We also worked with the British Transport Police and Police Scotland to make sure that there are officers at key hubs, encouraging school pupils to make sure that they have a face covering.

I assure Johann Lamont that we will continue to engage with local authorities to make sure that they are getting that message across as effectively as possible to parents and school pupils. We will continue to look at what further measures we can take to make sure that we encourage people to wear face coverings when they are on public transport, for their own protection and for the protection of those who work on our public transport systems.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is a loud discussion going on at the back of the chamber. If members want to carry that on, could they go elsewhere?

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sorry; there is dubiety over the seating plan and I am being asked to vacate this seat. My understanding, from the maps that the Parliamentary Bureau produced, is that this seat was allocated to the Conservatives and two others to the Liberal Democrats. If that is wrong, I am happy to move out of the chamber on your instruction, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am not going to tell people where to sit; I refer you to your business manager. If members of other groups have problems, they should also go to their business managers. I ask those in the chamber who are not asking questions to keep the noise down.

A90/M90 Traffic Levels

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the potential impact on traffic levels on the A90/M90 of planned housing developments. (S5O-04669)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Scottish planning policy sets out that planning authorities are expected to appraise the impact of their development plan spatial strategies, including planned housing developments, on the transport network. That should include the potential impact on trunk road traffic and identification of mitigation measures where appropriate.

Transport Scotland collects and processes land use allocation data, including data for planned housing development, from every planning authority in Scotland every two years. That data is used in relevant land use and transport models to appraise transport interventions as required.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that reply. Last week, a developer unveiled a new master plan for Echline in Queensferry, which involves 1,000 new homes, as well as new supermarkets, shops and restaurants; it is a massive development. However, without changes to the A90 access at Queensferry, the key road in and out of the town will have to run through the middle of that new estate and right past the new primary school. The Scottish Government has previously refused my requests to consider opening the old Forth road bridge A90 slip road, but that massive new plan makes the need for that change critical. Will he agree to meet me and local councillors to ensure that we can get a solution that works for that growing part of my constituency?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I reassure the member that, as it stands, before the application can be considered in detail, there will be a need for a full transport assessment to be undertaken as part of the planning process. My understanding is that, for that particular development, the planning assessment is to consider several key areas, which would all have an impact on the existing local road network and on the M90 at the Queensferry crossing area. I assure the member that, once that transport assessment has been completed, it will be considered by Transport Scotland officials. Following that assessment, they will be in a position to identify the mitigation measures that would need to be put in place.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mark Ruskell has a quick supplementary question.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

One significant way to reduce traffic levels on the M90 would be to extend the Edinburgh tram line to Fife, but the regional spatial strategy identifies that councils and developers will not have the funds to put such a project forward and complete it successfully. What commitment can the Government give to funding projects that have been identified by the spatial strategy for the region?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The member correctly identifies that a project of that nature would be a matter for the local authorities to consider taking forward. At the moment, they have made no representation to me in relation to a project of that nature. If that was their intention, we would be happy to engage with them on that project, but they would have to fund it through their existing funding structure.

Pavement and Double Parking (Enforcement)

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

6. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the enforcement of the pavement and double parking provisions in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. (S5O-04670)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019 is a multi-topic act with an extensive number of statutory instruments needed to implement the various parts. Progress on each part of the act, including the parking prohibitions, is dependent on parliamentary timescales and priorities, which have been affected by the current Covid-19 outbreak and European Union exit preparations.

Given those factors, and the fact that work on the secondary legislation programme is at an early stage, we are currently unable to give a precise date for when the pavement and double parking prohibitions will come into force. However, I will ensure that the Parliament is kept up to date on those matters.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply, and for his detailed response to the letter that I sent him. I understand the situation with Covid-19 and legislation going through, and I acknowledge that he says that he will update the Parliament. I know that he cannot give a definitive timescale, but can he indicate whether the guidance will be finalised before dissolution?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As I mentioned, implementation planning for the parking provisions in the 2019 act has been paused during the pandemic. That work has now restarted, and I reassure the member that it is a priority for us to make progress on it. Officials are currently developing an updated timeline for the secondary legislation and the consultation requirements for the implementation of the provisions, and I will ensure that the member is kept up to speed with that work.

Alongside that, my officials have engaged extensively with stakeholders, including local authorities, on the development of the parking standards guidance that will underpin the parking provisions. I will ensure that we make progress with that as quickly as we can, and I will certainly make sure that the member is kept up to date with the timelines around the provisions in the act.

Road Connectivity (South Ayrshire)

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to improve road connectivity in South Ayrshire. (S5O-04671)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Government recognises the importance of a connected, safe, resilient and high-quality strategic transport network for South Ayrshire. Since 2007, we have invested £75 million in the maintenance of the A77 and £50 million in the A78, and we are spending £29 million on building the Maybole bypass.

Good progress is being made on the construction of the bypass, which will provide benefits for the residents of Maybole as well as improving connections to the ports at Loch Ryan. Any further enhancements to either the A77 or A78 will be a matter for consideration as part of the second strategic transport projects review process.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer. However, he will be aware that both the Dutch House roundabout and the Whitletts roundabout were identified as pinch points in STPR 2. He will also be aware of the need for the dualling of the A77 between the Whitletts and Holmston roundabouts, which was identified in the first strategic transport projects review in 2008. To date, no action has been taken on upgrading those roundabouts or dualling the A77. Will the cabinet secretary give a commitment that those projects will now be taken forward?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I would appreciate a quick answer, cabinet secretary.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I can certainly give the member a commitment that we will consider those issues as part of the STPR 2 process, as they were identified in an initial appraisal for the south-west of Scotland that was published a number of months ago.

Transport System (Affordability)

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to make the transport system more affordable and accessible for people living in poverty. (S5O-04672)

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The national transport strategy, which underpins our investment in those areas, sets reducing inequalities as a key priority and states:

“Everyone in Scotland will share in the benefits of a modern and accessible transport system.”

The first annual national transport strategy delivery plan, which will set out our actions to deliver the strategy’s priorities, will be published by the end of the year.

In 2019, there were 1.4 million people with national concessionary travel cards in Scotland. We are progressing our review of concessionary travel on all public transport to look at those under the age of 26, and we have begun the necessary preparatory work to deliver a national concessionary travel scheme for free bus travel for under-19s.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

This year’s challenge poverty week takes place against the backdrop of Covid-19, but even before the pandemic we saw a rising tide of poverty. A key cause of that was the high cost of transport in particular, which is often unaffordable for people on low incomes.

Can the cabinet secretary tell us what the new timescale is for the introduction of free bus travel for people under the age of 19? Will he listen to the calls from the Poverty Alliance to urgently extend that scheme to all those under 25, who are currently the hardest hit by unemployment, and to those on universal credit in order to loosen the grip of poverty on their lives?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I can assure the member that, under the review that we are undertaking on the present concessionary schemes, tackling child poverty is a key element that is being considered as part of our assessment. I expect that work to be completed by the end of this year.

Work on preparations for concessionary travel for under-19s was paused during the course of the pandemic, but that work has now restarted and we are looking to identify the timeframe for its delivery.

I assure the member that tackling poverty—in particular, the poverty associated with the transport costs that are experienced by young people and the difficulty that that can cause for them—is a central factor that we are considering as part of the review work that is already being undertaken.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes portfolio questions. My apologies to those whose supplementaries I was unable to take.

Covid-19

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

Our next item of business is a statement by the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, on Covid-19.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I will now update the Parliament on the current position in relation to Covid-19. I will give an assessment of the current course of the pandemic; I will propose difficult but important temporary measures to stem the increase in cases; I will set out how we will support businesses affected by those measures; and I will update the Parliament on the longer-term work that we are doing to further improve our ability to live with Covid.

In all of that, I will be very frank about the challenges that we face and the difficult balances that we must try to strike. None of this is easy. I am acutely aware that, in every decision that we take, lives and jobs are at stake, and I assure not just the Parliament but the country that none of these decisions is taken lightly.

First, let me give a summary of the daily statistics that were published a short time ago. Since yesterday, an additional 1,054 cases of Covid-19 have been confirmed. That represents 13 per cent of people who have been newly tested, and it takes the total number of cases to 34,760. A total of 319 patients are currently in hospital with confirmed Covid, which is an increase of 57 since yesterday, and 28 people are in intensive care, which is an increase of three since yesterday.

I regret also to report that one further death has been registered of a patient who had been confirmed as having the virus. The total number of deaths in Scotland under that measurement is now 2,533.

National Records of Scotland has also published its weekly update today, which includes cases where Covid was a suspected or contributory cause of death. Today’s update shows that, by last Sunday, the total number of registered deaths linked to Covid was 4,276. Twenty of those deaths were registered last week, and that is the highest weekly number of deaths since late June. Every single one of those deaths represents the loss of an irreplaceable individual. Again, I send my condolences to all those who are currently grieving.

Those figures illustrate the rising challenge that we again face from the virus. That challenge is starkly set out in an evidence paper that was published today by the Scottish Government’s senior clinical advisers—the chief medical officer, the chief nursing officer and the national clinical director. The paper assesses our current situation in relation to Covid and it explains, as I will try to do in this statement, why we must introduce additional measures to control the virus, why it is urgent that we act now and why we have decided on the specific actions that I am setting out today.

Before I come on to that, I will emphasise some of the more positive elements of our current position. It is important for the morale of all of us that we do not forget that progress has been made. It might not feel that way, but the situation now is better than it was in March. We are benefiting from the sacrifices that were made over the summer. By driving the virus to very low levels then, we helped to ensure that, even after several weeks of increases, the estimated total number of cases is currently just 13 per cent of the peak level back in March. The number of cases is rising, but not as quickly as it was then.

In addition, and most importantly, we now have test and protect teams across the country, who are doing exceptional work. Test and protect is now bearing much of the strain of controlling the virus.

We understand more now about how to reduce the risk of transmission, by meeting outdoors rather than indoors if possible, wearing face coverings, cleaning hands thoroughly and keeping our distance from people in other households. Although significant restrictions are still in place, which are hard and painful, we are living much more freely now than we did in the spring and early summer. We are determined for that to continue if at all possible.

I want to be clear: we are not going back into lockdown today. We are not closing schools, colleges or universities; we are not halting the remobilisation of the national health service for non-Covid care; we are not asking people to stay at home.

Although the measures that I announce today will feel like a backward step—which I know them to be in many respects—they are in the interests of protecting our progress overall. It is by taking tough but necessary action now that we hope to avoid even tougher action in future.

Let me turn in more detail to the state of the virus. The daily figures that I reported a moment ago and, more fundamentally, the evidence paper that was published today highlight the need for action. It is worth remembering that, when I updated Parliament just over two weeks ago, the average number of new cases that was reported each day was 285, which was up from 102 three weeks previously. Now, we are reporting an average of 788 new cases each day.

In addition, I can report that, in the seven days up to Monday, the number of people in hospital with Covid increased by almost 80 per cent and the number of people who died with Covid in the past week was the highest for 14 weeks. In fact, the number of deaths in the past week alone was the same as in the whole of the previous month.

The increase in the numbers of people in hospital with, and sadly dying from, Covid reflects the rise that we now see in new cases among older age groups. In the second half of September, cases rose most rapidly in the younger age groups but, in the past week, cases in people over 80 years old increased by 60 per cent, and cases in the 60 to 79-year-old age group more than doubled.

We are seeing geographic as well as demographic spread. Without a doubt, and by some distance, the highest levels of infection are across the central belt, and we are particularly concerned about Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire and Arran, Lothian and Forth Valley, which will be reflected in what I say later.

However, that should not obscure the fact that numbers are rising across the country. The majority of our health board areas are now recording more than 50 new cases per 100,000 of their population each week, and virtually every heath board area has a rising number of cases. The only exceptions are Orkney and Shetland, and even they have had cases in recent weeks. As we speak, a significant outbreak is taking place in the Western Isles.

The need to act, and to act across the country, is clear, as is the need to take additional action now. I mentioned earlier that the prevalence of the virus is currently around 13 per cent of its March peak. However, we estimate that the number of new Covid cases is currently growing by 7 per cent each day. The starkest warning in today’s evidence paper is perhaps that, without action, we are likely to return to the peak level of infections that we had in the spring by the end of this month.

It is also instructive to consider the experience of other countries. Our modelling suggests that we are approximately four weeks behind France and six weeks behind Spain in the resurgence of the virus. Their resurgence, like ours, was initially concentrated among younger people, but it spread to other age groups and they now see significantly more hospital admissions, more people in intensive care and more deaths.

It is to interrupt that trajectory that we must act now. Of course, we have already taken perhaps the most important—certainly, the most painful—step that we can to reduce transmission. For the past 12 days, apart from certain limited exceptions, we have not been able to meet up in each other’s homes. That measure should already be making a difference to infection rates even if, because of the time lag between the introduction of new measures and their impact, we do not yet see it reflected in our figures.

Let me take the opportunity to emphasise again today how vital it is that we all stick to that rule. It is incredibly hard for all of us not to visit friends and family, and not to have them visit us, but it is the single most effective measure that we can take to stop Covid passing from one household to another. I ask people to please stick with it.

That measure is vital, but the clinical advice which I have now received says that it is not sufficient—we need to do more and we need to do it now. To those who might wonder and—understandably—ask whether the measures that I set out today go too far, let me be clear: if this were a purely one-dimensional decision and all that we had to consider was the immediate harm from Covid, it is likely that we would go further.

However, seven months into the pandemic, I am acutely aware that that decision is not, and cannot be, one dimensional. We have a duty to balance all the different harms that the pandemic causes. We must consider the direct harm to health from the virus, which must be reduced, alongside the harm that is done to jobs and the economy, which, in turn, has an impact on people’s health and wellbeing. We also have to consider the wider harms to health and wellbeing that the virus and the restrictions that are deployed to control it are having on us all.

For all those reasons, we are applying a far more targeted approach than we did in March—one that reduces opportunities for the virus to spread while keeping businesses and other activities as open as possible. We are not recommending that people who shielded over the summer should return to staying completely indoors. We know how damaging that is to your wellbeing, but we recommend that you take extra care, especially if you live in the central belt. You can now access information about infection levels in your local neighbourhood on the Public Health Scotland website.

I will set out the additional measures that we are proposing. The measures on hospitality are intended to be in force for 16 days, from this Friday at 6 pm to Sunday 25 October inclusive—in other words, across the next two weeks and three weekends. First, with the exception of the five health board areas that I will talk about shortly, pubs, bars, restaurants and cafes will be able to operate indoors on the following very restricted basis only. They can operate during the day, from 6 am to 6 pm, for the service of food and non-alcoholic drinks only. Hotel restaurants will be able to operate beyond 6 pm, but only for residents and without alcohol.

The reason why we are not closing indoor hospitality completely is that we know the benefits in terms of reducing loneliness and isolation and of giving people, particularly those who live alone, somewhere that they can meet a friend for a coffee and a chat. However, the restrictions will be strictly applied, and all the current regulations and the limits on meeting a maximum of six people from two households in indoor public places will still apply.

Again with the exception of the central belt areas that I will mention shortly, bars, pubs, restaurants and cafes can continue to serve alcohol outdoors up to the existing curfew time of 10 pm, and subject to the 6 and 2 rule on group size. It is important to stress that there will be an exemption to those rules in all parts of Scotland for celebrations that are associated with specific life events, such as weddings that are already booked and funerals. The current rules for those will continue to apply.

Those are the new measures that will take effect nationwide. However, because of the significantly higher levels of infection in the central belt, we are introducing stricter restrictions in the following five health board areas: Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire and Arran, Lothian and Forth Valley. In those areas, all licensed premises—with the exception of hotels, which will remain open for residents—will be required to close indoors and outdoors, though takeaways will be permitted. Cafes that do not have an alcohol licence will be able to stay open until 6 pm to prevent social isolation. In addition, snooker and pool halls, indoor bowling alleys, casinos and bingo halls will close in those areas for two weeks, from 10 October.

Contact sports for people aged 18 and over will be suspended for the next two weeks, with an exception for professional sports. Indoor group exercise activities will not be allowed, although the current rules will remain in place for under-18s. Gyms can remain open for individual exercise. Outdoor live events will not be permitted in those five regions for the next two weeks.

Finally, we are asking people who live in those five health board areas to avoid public transport unless it is absolutely necessary—for example, for going to school or to work, if homeworking is not an option. We are not imposing mandatory travel restrictions at this stage and, specifically, we are not insisting that people cancel any half-term breaks that they have planned. However, in general, we are advising people who live in Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire and Arran, Lothian and Forth Valley not to travel outside the health board area that they live in if they do not need to. Likewise, people in other parts of Scotland should not travel to those areas if they do not need to. More detail of all that I have just set out will be available on the Scottish Government website.

I want to set out some of the reasoning behind those decisions and, in particular, the focus on hospitality. I know that the vast majority of pubs, bars and restaurants have worked exceptionally hard over the past few months to ensure the safety of their staff and customers. I am deeply grateful to them for that, and I know how tough the albeit temporary restrictions are for the hospitality sector. However, the evidence paper that has been published today sets out why such settings present a particular risk.

The R number seems to have risen above 1 approximately three weeks after the hospitality sector opened up and, of those people contacted by test and protect, more than one fifth report having visited a hospitality setting. That does not absolutely mean that that is where those people got the virus, but it shows that such settings pose a particular risk of transmitting the virus.

That makes sense from what we know about how the virus is spread. Indoor environments, where different households from different age groups can mix, inevitably present a risk of transmission. That risk can be increased, in some hospitality premises, if good ventilation is difficult and if it is hard to control the movement of people. Of course, the presence of alcohol can affect people’s willingness to physically distance.

For all those reasons, significantly restricting licensed premises for 16 days temporarily removes one of the key opportunities that the virus has to jump from household to household—we have already restricted the other key opportunity of transmission, which is within our homes. Restricting those opportunities is an essential part of our efforts to get the R number back below 1.

It is worth noting that many other countries are now introducing restrictions on hospitality, no doubt for the same reasons. Ireland, France, Germany and Belgium have announced a variety of measures over the past few days.

Earlier, I mentioned that one of the things that we are trying to do is balance the public health harm that is caused by Covid with wider economic and social harms. I know that although the measures that we are proposing are temporary, they will have a significant impact on many businesses, and I am sorry for that. Since the Government is placing an obligation on businesses, we have an obligation to help them financially. I can announce that we are immediately making available an additional £40 million to support businesses that will be affected by the measures over the next two weeks. We will work with the affected sectors, especially hospitality, in the coming days to ensure that the money provides the most help to those who most need it and that it gets to them as quickly as possible.

For the rest of this month, businesses can still use the United Kingdom Government’s job retention, or furlough, scheme. However, it now requires a significant contribution from employers, so one of the things that we will discuss with businesses in relation to our support package is how we can mitigate some or all of that contribution.

As I have indicated, our intention is that the additional measures will be in place for just over two weeks, incorporating three weekends, from 6 pm on Friday—for the hospitality sector—until Sunday 25 October. We will, of course, keep the situation under review between now and then, and we will keep the Parliament updated.

We hope that the restrictions that are already in place and those that I have announced today will stem the increase in the number of new cases, but I cannot stress enough that, fundamentally, that is down to us all. The more that we comply with all the restrictions and advice, the more effective they will be.

As we want the measures to be temporary, it is important that we use the next two weeks to prepare, protect and prevent in order to further strengthen our resilience and ability to live alongside the virus. Therefore, I confirm that, over the next period, we will also take the following steps. We will introduce regulations to extend the mandatory use of face coverings in indoor communal settings, which will include, for example, staff canteens and corridors in workplaces. We will take action to strengthen compliance with the different strands of the FACTS advice, particularly focusing on areas where, as we know from our research, compliance is not yet high enough, such as the need to self-isolate.

I confirm that, from this weekend, we are asking shops around Scotland to return to 2m physical distancing and to reintroduce the mitigations that they put in place earlier in the pandemic, such as one-way systems in supermarkets.

We will work across all other sectors to review and, where necessary, tighten the guidance on and regulation of their operating practices.

In addition, over the next two weeks, we will conduct a further review of our testing strategy, setting out the further steps that we will take to expand capacity—already well under way—to build resilience and to extend testing to more individuals and groups of people in our society who do not have symptoms.

Finally, we will finalise a strategic framework, setting out the different levels of intervention that can be adopted in future, either locally or around Scotland, depending on how the virus is spreading. We very much hope to align the broad framework with those that are being considered by other UK nations, although each nation will take its own decisions on implementation. Subject to the Parliament’s agreement, we will put the strategic framework to a debate and vote in the Parliament in the week after the October recess.

I am well aware that the measures that I have outlined today are disruptive to many businesses—especially hospitality businesses—and will be unwelcome to many people across the country. However, although they are significant, as they need to be in order to make an impact, they do not represent a lockdown. In fact, they are designed to reduce the likelihood of a future lockdown.

We are not requiring people to stay inside all day, as we were earlier in the year. Schools will stay open. Learning will continue in our universities and colleges. Shops will continue to trade. Businesses such as manufacturing and construction will continue.

The new restrictions are intended to last for 16 days. They are intended to be short and sharp action to arrest a worrying increase in infection. However, although they are temporary, they are needed. Without them, there is a very real risk that the virus would run out of control by the end of this month. With them, we hope to slow down its spread. That will help to keep open schools and businesses, including hospitality businesses, over the winter. Fundamentally, it will also save lives.

I ask everybody across the country please to follow the new rules and continue to take the other basic steps—difficult, but basic—that we know will protect you and each other. Please do not visit each other’s homes, for now. Work from home if you can. Download the Protect Scotland app if you can and have not already done so. Of course, also remember FACTS: face coverings; avoid crowded places; clean hands and hard surfaces; 2m distancing; and self-isolate and get tested if you have symptoms.

Sticking to all of that is not easy. After seven long months, it is harder than it has ever been. However, it is essential. It is the best way to look out for each other. Now, more than ever, we all need that spirit of love and solidarity that has served us so well.

Hard though it is to believe it right now, all the hard sacrifices that we are making will hasten the brighter days that lie ahead. The pandemic will pass, so let us do all that we can to help each other through it. Let us stick with it and, above all, stick together.

My thanks again to everybody, across the country, for everything that you are doing.

The Presiding Officer

The First Minister will now take questions.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Edinburgh Central)

I thank the First Minister for advance sight of her statement.

Fifteen days ago, when the First Minister announced the reintroduction of national restrictions for the first time since lockdown had started to be lifted, I said that the Scottish public were steeling themselves for a long, hard winter.

In the past fortnight, people have not been allowed to visit friends or family in their homes; the number of households that they can meet in public spaces, both indoors and out, has been curtailed; businesses that were looking to reopen have remained closed, and those that had been allowed to trade again have seen their hours cut. For many, that has been a bitter pill to swallow, but they have done it, and have done it because they were told that, if they did, it would stop the rise in infections that we had started to see.

People are now being asked to give up even more. They can see that cases are rising, and they are willing to act, to stick by the rules and to do their bit. However, we need to acknowledge that the First Minister’s announcement today is putting further massive restrictions on people’s lives and livelihoods.

In the weeks ahead, the whole country will be in the firing line, perhaps no more so than in Scotland’s hospitality sector. Like other small businesses, the sector is looking to the First Minister for a clear statement of what support it can expect. Yesterday, the Federation of Small Businesses in Scotland said:

“The bare minimum that those in business expect is for the Scottish Government to set out their new package of help at the same time as they detail any new restrictions.”

Today, we have had the headline figure, but we do not have what small businesses really need: the details. They cannot afford to wait. Many are running on empty; all reserves are gone. They want to know today how much their business can apply for; how they apply; and how long it will take for any money to reach them.

The First Minister

Those points and questions are all perfectly legitimate.

I know how tough this is for people. I am aware of that, in every single decision that I take. They are horrendously difficult decisions to take, but that is as nothing compared with how difficult it is to live with their consequences. There is not a moment of any day when that is not very much in my mind.

Before I come on to hospitality and businesses, I say that we are seeing a rising tide of infections across the UK and across Europe and the world. This is still an accelerating global pandemic. It is very difficult, and feels incredibly difficult for people right now. It is important not to underplay that. However, it is equally important not to underplay the progress that we have made, which allows us to have much more freedom now than we did in lockdown earlier in the year. It is important that we stick with the restrictions, in order to preserve that.

I pay tribute to and thank—I am sure that I do so on behalf of people across the country—the test and protect teams, which are doing so much work in every part of Scotland to bear as much as possible of the strain of controlling the virus. That is a significant step forward from the position earlier in the year.

I will make two points about hospitality. Ruth Davidson referred to small businesses, but hospitality businesses are particularly affected by my announcement. What I will say is not intended to criticise decisions that other Governments have taken, because we have taken such an approach to an extent with the 10 pm curfew, but the tendency in recent weeks has been to keep hospitality businesses open while restricting more and more what they can do. That might mean that they feel as if they are all but closed, but financial support is not being given to help them. We have decided today to take a more honest position; we are restricting hospitality further but offering significant additional financial help. That is a more honest and straightforward way of treating the sector.

The question about the package is important. I have made it clear that significant additional funding will be made available. Yesterday, I looked at options for allocating the money and decided to take a day or so after the announcement to consult the sector, so that we can hear how it thinks the money would be best allocated, what the priorities for it are and what package would best meet its needs. I do not want that process to take a long time but, given the impact on the sector, it is important to allow it to have such input. As was the case with Aberdeen, we then want the money to flow quickly to affected businesses.

We must recognise that the restrictions that have in recent weeks been placed on hospitality in all parts of the UK have not come with additional financial support. We are changing that today and ensuring that the burden that such businesses will bear in the next two weeks is reflected in the support that we provide.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the First Minister for advance sight of her statement.

The hospitality sector is not Sodom and Gomorrah, and it should not be treated as such. Why does the First Minister not consider closing businesses that do not comply with guidance instead of shutting every business—businesses that serve 70 per cent of the population and include those that comply fully? Where is the evidence that Covid is spreading in all hospitality settings to warrant a blanket ban on all such establishments? What are the terms for the review after the initial 16 days? How will the Government distribute the £40 million for mitigation for hospitality businesses that are forced to shut? If the First Minister is having a consultation, will she speak to trade unions? Will she take it into account that every worker and every business should be covered for all their losses, including young workers, many of whom are on minimum hours or zero-hours contracts?

The First Minister

I will touch on Richard Leonard’s questions about finances. I said in answer to Ruth Davidson that we are taking a day or two to talk to the sector so that we allocate the money in the way that it thinks will best help affected businesses. It is important to do that.

Let me stress that we are digging deep to provide support, because we think that that is the right and necessary thing to do, given the restrictions that are, inevitably, being announced today. We are also seeking to work with the UK Government for additional support to be made available across the four nations—the other devolved Administrations are pressing that point again—for any steps that we have to take in future, because our budget is finite and it is not possible for us to continue to take such compensatory steps beyond where we are right now.

Of course we will talk to the trade unions—we talk to the trade unions in everything that we do—but we want to ensure that the money gets to businesses as quickly and effectively as possible.

On the point about evidence, I do not know whether Richard Leonard has had the opportunity to see the evidence paper that the chief medical officer, the chief nursing officer and the national clinical director prepared and published today—he perhaps has not had the opportunity, because it was published shortly before my statement. The paper looks at the evidence that we are putting forward for the focus of these restrictions. This is not hospitality’s fault; nobody is pointing the finger of blame.

Two things are important to point out. One is that, because genomic sequencing is required, we cannot say—in any case of the virus, although test and protect interview people when they test positive to find out where they have been—that, because a person has been in a pub or restaurant, they caught the virus there. However, it shows that there has been an exposure and that they have been somewhere that they could have caught it, or transmitted it when they were positive.

The other is that because of some of the characteristics of hospitality—sometimes there is poor ventilation, or places in which people with alcohol are mixing more and not maintaining physical distancing, even in premises where a significant effort has been made to comply with all the regulations, as the vast majority have done—these are higher-risk settings for the virus to transmit.

If we want to make a big impact on arresting the rise in cases, there are two things that my advisers say we have to do. We have to limit interaction between households in domestic settings—that is what we have done—and limit interaction between different households and between people generally in other settings in which they are likely to come together. Obviously, that includes hospitality.

None of this is easy or straightforward, and there are no straightforward, easy solutions. However, we must arrest this increase to have and retain as much normality as we can for individuals and businesses as we get deeper into the winter.

On the review, it is our firm intention that these measures will be lifted at the end of two weeks. I am not saying that I will first come back to Parliament and say that; they will be lifted at the end of the two-week period. Obviously it stands to reason that we will monitor the virus between now and then, and if there are any changes to any of that, we will report to Parliament. However, our intention is that these are time-limited measures.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Absolutely everyone will recognise that these new restrictions are regrettable, but, in the face of the rising number of infections, I believe they are necessary. However, the situation reinforces the need for continued support for people’s incomes—

workers’ incomes, not just the incomes of business owners.

The job support scheme is clearly not a sufficiently flexible replacement for furlough, given the need for local and national measures to meet Scotland’s particular circumstances. Therefore, I endorse the call on the First Minister to ensure that the £40 million that she has announced is not only available for business owners but supports the employees in hospitality businesses whose incomes will be affected.

I also note the success that people around the world have seen in New Zealand. By showing strong leadership—leadership that I think we should follow—it has, for the second time, achieved elimination of community circulation of this virus. It is now able to lift restrictions because they were imposed quickly and clearly enough to drive down infections. That is a lesson that we and other countries should take seriously.

I also welcome the review of testing that the First Minister announced. As the First Minister knows, the Greens have persistently raised that issue with the Scottish Government.

We are all aware of the shortcomings of the UK testing system. Will the First Minister tell us more about the work that is being done to build capacity in NHS Scotland to conduct that testing, and does she agree that the review that she has just announced must look at a wider role for regular, routine testing of groups within the population?

The First Minister

Let me address each of those points. First, on the point about giving support to workers as opposed to only businesses, I absolutely agree. In my statement, I specifically said that one of the things that we want to talk to businesses about is ensuring that our financial package can help with the contribution that businesses now have to make to the job retention scheme, which is greater than it was in weeks gone by.

For the rest of this month, businesses can still make use of that scheme and re-furlough workers, but they have to pay a bigger contribution. Therefore, we hope that the package will help make a contribution to that, which will, by extension, help employees of those businesses.

It is absolutely imperative that we see further action from the UK Government on support for wages for businesses that will continue to be affected by Covid. It is also important that it gives further financial support, not only to Scotland but to Wales, Northern Ireland and parts of England, when restrictions have to be imposed.

This week, there have been positive four-nations discussions about that, and I hope that we will see progress in the not too distant future.

On one level, I very much agree about New Zealand—I think that there is a lot to admire about it generally and about its current leadership, although I probably should not go too much further than that, given that there is an election there at the moment. However, New Zealand has not been without its trade-offs. Every country is making trade-offs. Although New Zealand has a different approach domestically, its borders are completely closed and people cannot go in or out without, at the very least, observing very strict quarantine. Obviously, we are not geographically the same as New Zealand, and there are different issues at play, given Scotland’s integration not just with other parts of the UK but with Europe more generally. No two countries are identical. We look to learn from all countries where we can, but we have to adapt to our circumstances, which is what we are seeking to do.

We are in the process of creating a number of regional hubs that will significantly increase NHS testing capacity. We are already transferring care home testing to the NHS in order to give us more capacity through the UK system. The increased NHS capacity will give us more scope to expand regular routine testing of asymptomatic groups in the population, where that is clinically advised—I will keep stressing that point. We are already looking at further groups in the NHS and we will consider that for the wider population as well, but it is important that any such testing is clinically advised, and my clinical advisers would say that it does not always make sense to do it in every part of the population. However, once we have carried out the review that I referred to, we will update the Parliament on the next steps that we will take.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I have personally complimented the First Minister on her communications, and I continue to support the cautious approach. However, like many people across the country, I am now frustrated and disappointed. Why have we had rumours and hints of greater restrictions for weeks but no up-front evidence or debate? We now have a new set of complex measures that are being rushed through in a matter of days, with little evidence of the likely impact. What has happened to the route map, and what now for the elimination strategy?

People made sacrifices for longer here, but the Government did not use that extra time well to get ready. For instance, why has it taken until now to agree to asymptomatic testing? To many people, the approach no longer feels like a strategy; it feels like a series of knee-jerk reactions. I want to work with the First Minister to get it right, but we need a new route map that is endorsed by the Parliament and that everyone can understand. Will she agree to that?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Not only will I agree to it, but I announced in my statement that, the week after the October recess, we will bring a new strategic framework to the Parliament for debate and a vote. All four UK nations are working on similar approaches. We hope to align with a strategic framework, although it will be down to each nation to decide which levels of it are implemented in which nation or in different parts of each nation. That will come to Parliament the week after the October recess.

I understand that people are frustrated and depressed. I share the frustration and depression about all of this situation, although I understand that it is much harder for many people across the country than it is for me. However, as I keep saying—it is a statement of the obvious—we are in a global pandemic.

On the specific and legitimate points that Willie Rennie raised, I constantly have a debate in my mind about the balance to strike in relation to being open and discursive with people before we reach decisions in order to give an insight into the challenges that we are grappling with and the factors that we are taking into account. That is what we have done over the past couple of weeks. That can lead to speculation running away from us, which, again, is understandable. The alternative to that would have been just to keep it all to ourselves and then come here today and announce things without any open discussion of the challenges.

We will continue to try to get that balance right. Increasingly, measures are complex but, again, there are difficult balances there. We can be simple and hard or we can be a bit more targeted but recognise that the price of that is a bit more complexity.

In our judgment, we had to do what we have done for the central belt today. The simple thing to do would have been to apply that across the country, but that would have been much too hard for the non-central-belt parts of the country. That is where some of the complexity comes from.

I have tried to articulate the elimination strategy to Willie Rennie before, and I will have a brief go at doing so again. It has always been our strategy to eliminate the virus in the sense of getting it to the lowest possible level. The challenges of doing that ebb and flow, depending on the range of restrictions that we have in place and are prepared to live with; in addition, of course, we now have the winter effect. It is still our objective to get the virus to the lowest possible level—in fact, the Governments of the four nations of the UK are now signed up to a strategy that is about suppressing the virus to the lowest possible level. That is why we are putting additional restrictions in place. If we were happy to let the virus spread of its own free will, we would not be doing that. It is because we suppressed the virus so far over the summer that, although we are in a difficult situation at the moment, we are not in an out-of-control situation. We would already have been in such a situation if we had not suppressed the virus so far in the summer.

On asymptomatic testing, we test asymptomatic groups: we test workers in care homes every week, regardless of whether they are symptomatic, and we test groups of NHS staff, regardless of whether they are symptomatic. We also do surveillance testing. Driven by clinical advice, what we are going to do now—we had always intended to do this, because we regularly review our testing strategy—is look at where we can go next to extend testing to asymptomatic groups of the population. As I said to Patrick Harvie, we will update the Parliament on that once we have had the opportunity to do the review.

The Presiding Officer

As many as 17 members would like to ask a question, so I hope that we can make progress.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The evidence paper that has been published by the chief medical officer today makes a compelling case for action, and today’s case numbers show that, sadly, there is indeed a need to act urgently. Is the First Minister content that the package of measures that she has announced today goes far enough in seeking to bring the virus under control?

By way of context, I mention that, this afternoon, it was announced that all pubs and cafes in Brussels are to close completely for one month.

The First Minister

Annabelle Ewing is absolutely right in what she said about Brussels. Earlier this week, the Irish Government decided, in effect, to close indoor hospitality venues in all parts of the Republic of Ireland; I think that, in Dublin, outdoor hospitality venues are closed, too. Therefore, we are not out of step. Many countries are having to take such difficult decisions. I think that it is better to be firm in taking them and to take them early in an attempt to arrest the spread of the virus than it is to wait longer and find that that is much more difficult to do.

Annabelle Ewing asked whether I am confident that the measures that we have taken will get the virus under control. What we are seeking to do with the very restrictive measures that are in place with regard to household interaction and hospitality is reduce the risk of transmission in the highest-risk settings. That is very much about arresting the growth in cases and starting to bring the virus back under control. If those measures are to succeed and we are to bring the virus back under control and keep it there, all of us will need to continue our efforts. As well as adhering to the specific restrictions that I have announced today, all of us must ensure that we continue to work from home if possible, that we comply with all the aspects of test and protect—self-isolation in particular—and that we follow all the other strands of the FACTS campaign. Strengthening compliance will be one of our other objectives over the next two-week period.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister said that household transmission is the principal way in which the virus is spread. She said that the restrictions to reduce that should be making a difference, but that is not yet reflected in the figures. Household restrictions were introduced in the Glasgow City Council area and two other local authority areas six weeks ago. Given that timeframe, is the First Minister able to comment on whether those household restrictions are effective?

The First Minister

The public health experts who advise the Government tell us that they think that there is evidence of those measures being effective; there is evidence that the measures that have been in place for longer in those west of Scotland areas have blunted the increase in cases.

However, the public health experts also say that the data is complicated—in the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area, in particular—because of the large outbreak among students that we have seen in recent weeks. They believe that the evidence exists; is just that it is not easy to see in the overall data because of various factors that are in play.

I understand that the chief medical officer and the national clinical director—I will be corrected if this has not yet been set up or confirmed—will offer a briefing to party leaders or their representatives later on, in which they will be happy to go into some of the detail of the data, if that would be of interest to members.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The First Minister mentioned a number of countries that have been looked at in relation to the hospitality sector. Given the varying rates of Covid-19, and how it is growing and spreading a lot faster in some countries than in others, what can be learned from other countries about how to tackle the pandemic? Are there any countries in particular that the First Minister feels we should look to?

The First Minister

We look at a range of countries across Europe and further afield. I think that there are things that we can learn from many countries, but all countries are having serious challenges with the pandemic.

New Zealand has been mentioned. We have tried to learn from its focus on driving the virus down to the lowest possible level, although the circumstances there, particularly in terms of geography, are very different from ours.

We have looked at actions that have been taken in some European countries in recent times to try to limit the disease’s spread. Again without criticising the Government in any other country—because, my goodness, we are all struggling with this—to be frank, I say that one of the lessons that I would draw from France and Spain is that action was perhaps not taken quickly enough to do some of the things that we are talking about to bring the disease’s spread more under control. Of course, I do not know all the detail of what those countries are doing.

We try to look for the positive things but also for things to avoid. However, this is a global pandemic that is still accelerating in most parts of the world. All countries are struggling with it, so we all have to continue to learn from each other as best we can.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Contact tracing is crucial to preventing the spread of Covid-19. Two cases have been reported to me this week. In one, the person tested positive for Covid-19, but five days later he had not been contacted. The other person was in direct contact

in a car, for at least an hour,

with

someone who tested positive. A week later, he had not been contacted to be told to self-isolate. The latest data tells us that a third of people are not being contact traced within 48 hours, and my constituents waited longer. If people do not know, they do not self-isolate, so the virus spreads.

One health board recruited contact tracers on the basis of there being seven cases a day. On Monday, they dealt with 130 positive cases. Is not it the case that not enough contact tracers have been recruited to cope with existing demand? How many more contact tracers will be in place by the end of the month, when restrictions are lifted?

The First Minister

No—that is not the case. We have resources in place across the health boards. We also have the national contact tracing centre that assists health boards, and we will continue to expand that resource as and when we need to. I have already set out many times what we did in creating the pool within health boards then replacing that pool with permanent recruits along the way. That capacity is in health boards.

I say to Jackie Baillie—and, in fact, to all members—that, if they are being contacted by constituents who believe that they should have been contacted by test and protect but have not been, those constituents should not wait to tell us that, but should get in touch so that we can follow it up straight away.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I have.

The First Minister

Good. I will make sure that that is followed up.

We have expert test and protect teams across the country. What we are finding—the information is publicly available, so people can compare and contrast different parts of the UK—is that more than 90 per cent of index cases’ contacts are being successfully traced and followed up from the minute a positive case goes into the case management system. That is very positive.

Of course, there will be difficulties in some cases, and sometimes errors will be made. No system is absolutely infallible, but test and protect is working really well and it deserves our credit and gratitude. There are issues, but things have improved and we continue to work with the UK Government to make sure that the time from a person’s being tested to the result going into the case management system is as short as possible, and that turnaround times continue to improve.

Test and protect teams are doing a great job; I really do think that they deserve our support and our thanks.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Self-isolation can be incredibly tough, but it is essential in order to reduce the spread of coronavirus and, ultimately, to save lives.

However, people should not have to make the choice between self-isolating and supporting themselves financially. What support is the Scottish Government providing at this challenging time to ensure that people do not fall into financial hardship? Will the Scottish Government continue to press the UK Government for clarity on consequential funding for the support scheme that was recently announced?

The First Minister

The support scheme is the key way by which we will help people on low incomes to self-isolate if they are asked to do so. It is a payment of £500 that will be administered through the Scottish welfare fund, and will be targeted particularly at people who are on universal credit, although some flexibility will be needed in order to reach others who are in need.

We are also working with local authorities to make sure that everybody who is given advice to self-isolate is proactively contacted, so that if they need help with delivery of food or medicines—even if they do not need financial help—that can be provided. We are asking people to do a very difficult thing in self-isolating for 14 days, so it is essential that they have the help that is needed.

We continue to pursue consequential funding for the support scheme with the UK Government. As I said earlier, we are in discussions about additional support that we think will be necessary, and about reconciliation of the consequential funding that has been made available for the pandemic so far. That money is being fully utilised in Scotland, so any new scheme, such as the support scheme, requires additional support through the consequentials stream.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

The First Minister confirmed that the additional restrictions will be in place until 25 October. What happens after that date will be of equal importance and interest. Will the whole of Scotland return to the current levels of restrictions, or will higher-level restrictions be maintained in some or all of the country? More important, whatever is decided, when and how will businesses and the general public know what the restrictions are? If we are going to close businesses, if nothing else we owe them the decency of adequate notice of when they can re-open.

The First Minister

Jamie Greene has done me a service, because I did not mention, as I should have, that, as things stand, when the additional restrictions cease on 25 October, we will go back to the current level of restrictions. The household restrictions will remain in place; the hospitality restrictions will end.

I am not going to stand here and give a 100 per cent guarantee and say with certainty that nothing in a global pandemic will change over those 14 days, but that is our firm intention, now.

On how we will update people, particularly over the recess, I give a daily update, despite the best efforts of some people. I do that so that I can give information directly when we are changing restrictions, in order that people know the rules that we are asking them to follow. I have no plans to stop that over the October recess.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Can the First Minister comment on plans to support hospitals, such as the Inverclyde royal hospital in my constituency, in dealing with the normal increase in patient admissions over the winter months while they must also support patients who are admitted with Covid symptoms?

The First Minister

All hospitals are being supported to ensure that they have capacity to deal with Covid-related admissions. The figure that I gave today for hospital admissions for Covid should make us all sit up and take notice. Once again, more than 300 people are in hospital with Covid.

However, we are also supporting hospitals to make sure that they can remobilise and care for people with non-Covid needs. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport is working very closely with the NHS on remobilisation and winter planning. I think that she will make a statement to Parliament in the week after recess with an update on all that work.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Earlier this week, I spoke with senior management of Greene King, which owns Belhaven brewery and pubs and is based in East Lothian. It reported that only a handful of test and protect contacts had been raised with its many premises. The First Minister’s evidence for today’s measures says that one in five contacts had been to a hospitality setting. Can she say how many that actually was?

The First Minister

I cannot do that off the top of my head, but I will be able to give Iain Gray that figure later. Some of the material is in the evidence paper that we published today. Members will be able to see the relative figures.

It is really important to stress—this is part of the difficulty; I am trying to be genuinely helpful—that when the test and protect team interviews somebody, that person will say, as we can imagine from our own lives, “Yesterday I was here, the day before I was there and this morning I have been here.” There will be multiple possible exposures. It is not the case that, because somebody has been in a pub, we assume that they necessarily got it in a pub. It is a possible exposure, and the percentage of people who mention being in hospitality settings shows that those are places where people, if they have Covid-19 without knowing it, are at risk of transmitting it.

I will see whether we can get the actual figures for Iain Gray later on. I apologise—I do not have them at the front of my mind right now.

The Presiding Officer

Joan McAlpine is joining us remotely.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

This week, I met the Scottish hospitality group, whose members employ thousands of people in my constituency and beyond. The businessmen argued that well-run hospitality is safer than household socialising. Does the published clinical research support that? They also said that the restrictions would mean permanent closures and redundancies, so I welcome the £40 million package of support.

Given the disproportionate effect of the restrictions on hospitality businesses compared with other businesses, such as supermarkets, which profit from the closure of hospitality venues, how will the Scottish Government engage with the hospitality sector, including the Scottish hospitality group, on how the money allocated to support it will be distributed?

The First Minister

That engagement will take place very quickly with the key stakeholders in hospitality. We are not talking about a complicated and lengthy consultation, but about ensuring that the money is allocated in a way that the sector thinks is appropriate and will deliver the best help.

On the question whether hospitality is safer than households, I am not sure that we can describe anything as 100 per cent safe in the context that we are in with the virus, but we have always accepted that regulated environments present fewer risks than unregulated environments. That is why we have restricted interactions within people’s own homes first of all.

However, we also know that, in other settings where people come together, households mix and there are people of different age groups, and where ventilation is perhaps not particularly good, and—I do not mean this in a pejorative or judgmental way in any sense—alcohol is involved and people are disinhibited, it can be more difficult to physically distance. All of that means that, not through their own fault but simply because of the nature of the environment, hospitality settings are places in which people who have the virus are more likely to transmit it than they would be walking around a supermarket.

That said, there is a need for supermarkets—I indicated this in my statement—to go back to some of the more stringent mitigations that they had in place earlier on in the pandemic. That is why we are asking them to return to 2m physical distancing.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

How was the additional £40 million in business support calculated? Will it be enough to safeguard every job and business impacted by the restrictions? On what date will the first of those businesses receive funding?

The First Minister

I am not going to give the date yet, because we have not had the discussion with the sector that I have already talked about. However, we want that money to go to businesses as quickly as is feasible. It is in nobody’s interests for that to be any other way.

On how the figure was calculated, obviously we have made assessments of the number of hospitality businesses and the kind of restrictions involved, and the remainder of the furlough. However, I will be brutally honest: the money is to some extent limited by the availability of funding in the Scottish Government. That is why I hope that Maurice Golden and his colleagues will join us in making the case to the UK Government for the need for greater consequentials to allow us to do more.

We believe that that support will significantly help hospitality businesses, given that the measure is temporary. Obviously, if the measure were extended—I do not intend that, and I hope that it will not be—we would need to look at things again. However, the fund is intended to mitigate losses over a two-week period.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

The First Minister has always been clear that the Government would seek a balance between protecting health and the wider costs of lockdown to the economy and people’s lives. We are facing the most difficult decision point yet if we want to settle and suppress the virus ahead of the winter. Can the First Minister outline the rationale and the scientific basis that drove the Scottish Government’s decision, as set out in her statement?

The First Minister

The rationale and the basis for that are set out in the evidence paper that I have spoken about, which I have tried to summarise in the remarks that I have made.

I am not a scientist or a public health expert, and one of the difficult things that I have had to learn over the past few months is that science takes us only so far in any of these decisions. I think that all of us as decision makers strive for a situation in which science will make the decisions for us, but it cannot. Basically, it tells us how the virus spreads, where it is most likely to spread and what can be done to mitigate it; we then have to make difficult decisions on the basis of that. There are limited things that we can do to try to stop the virus spreading; the most important thing is that we do all of them.

That is down to all of us as individuals; there is also the burden that is being borne by some businesses across the country. The good news is that, if we do all those things, we know from the summer that we can suppress the virus. That is the challenge for us, albeit in more difficult circumstances, because we are not in strict lockdown and the weather and winter challenges will be different. However, we have other things to bring to bear, such as test and protect. If we all do what we are being asked to do and test and protect does the rest for us, we can bring the virus back under control. I am as certain of that as it is possible to be during a global pandemic.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

The First Minister said that she is providing additional funding to support businesses that are affected by today’s measures, not least hospitality and tourism, which face decimation.

Does the First Minister understand that, even before today, many businesses were already crippled because of existing restrictions that prevented them from opening, including outdoor residential education, soft play centres and many more? What support will those businesses get as a result of the announcement today? How far will the £40 million go? For example, will it include gym instructors who will no longer be able to provide classes?

The First Minister

I do not underestimate the impact of any of the restrictions. I remind members that, in saying that, I am not trying to minimise the impact, but it is important to remind people that, with gyms, for example, we are talking about a two-week period. The fund is there to mitigate, as far as it can, losses that result from the measures that we have announced today, including for any business that is affected by those measures.

I am acutely aware of the impact across other sectors that are not affected by what we have announced today but which continue to be affected by previous decisions.

We are trying to make the available funding that we have go as far as possible, but it is finite. I keep making that point because it is a statement of fact. I hope that members across the chamber, regardless of politics or affiliation, will get behind us as we make the case to the UK Government that significant additional financial support is needed for many sectors across the economy.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Without saying so, the First Minister believes that it is the consumption of alcohol indoors in hospitality settings that is a major cause of the spread of the virus. Could she publish the evidence that has led her to that conclusion?

Why do cafes, pubs and restaurants have to close completely for 16 days—for instance, they could voluntarily accept a ban on alcohol and concentrate on food and soft drinks instead—whereas cafes that do not have a licence and ordinarily sell food and soft drinks can remain open? That does not seem to me to be logical or make sense. Could the First Minister consider giving cafes, pubs and restaurants the option to remain open if they so choose, as long as they remove alcohol?

The First Minister

They will have that option outside the central belt. We have to take tougher measures in the central belt, because this is also about limiting the volume of people coming together. That is why we are going further in the central belt than we are going elsewhere.

Trust me—I am not trying to make judgmental statements about alcohol. People say—and I understand this; I demand it all the time of the Government’s clinical advisers—“Give us the evidence.” However, we get to a point where some of this is just common sense. We all know that, in certain circumstances, complying with certain restrictions is more difficult. [

Interruption.

]

Mike Rumbles is saying that there has to be evidence. There is a lot of evidence, and we are publishing a lot of it today. Scientists across the world are publishing evidence all the time. I am not saying that evidence is not important—it is crucially important; I am making the obvious point that there are some matters to which we also have to apply our common sense.

At the heart of this is an infectious virus. We know how it transmits, so we know how to try to stop it transmitting, and we know the circumstances in which it is more difficult than in others to do that.

Evidence is important, and we are publishing as much of that as we can, but, ultimately, we all have to apply a bit of good old-fashioned common sense as well sometimes, and we are trying to get the balance around that as right as possible.

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

We have heard that the UK and Scottish Governments are considering moving to a levels-based approach, which could be applied nationally or regionally. Does the First Minister agree that one way to solve the financial problems could be that moving to specific levels of restriction would trigger support from the Treasury? Would she urge the UK Government to look at that approach?

The First Minister

Yes, I would. That is a very sensible way of looking at it. The good news is that that discussion is under way. It is still at a reasonably early stage, but it is quite positive on a four-nations basis. It is about

an aligned strategic framework under which financial support is triggered by the level that an area is at, although it would be for the Governments in each of the four nations to decide which level all or part of each of our countries was at at any particular time.

Ireland has a five-level system. If we had levels—although I am not pre-empting the level that we will put to Parliament, because discussions are still to be had on that—we would probably be at around level 3, as Ireland is. That is the kind of approach that we are working on across the four nations, and I hope that Parliament will be able to debate that early after the recess.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

First Minister, in your statement you said that people in the five central belt health boards could not travel outside their health board areas. However, many people across the country will not be aware of what constitutes the health board that they are living in. What advice will the Scottish Government be giving to people on the territorial extent of the health board that they are living in and on where they can and cannot travel to? Can you also set out how preventing travel between health board areas will be enforced?

The First Minister

Very specifically, I did not say that people “cannot travel”. We thought carefully about mandatory travel restrictions, and we are not putting them in place at this stage. I had a discussion with party leaders the other night, in which I thought that the view was expressed that, if it was possible, we should not have mandatory travel restrictions. We have tried to accommodate that view. We are not saying to people in those health board areas that they cannot travel. I am not saying to people in those areas that, if they have an October holiday break planned, they cannot go. We are saying to people in those health board areas, “Think carefully about whether your travel is essential. If you don’t need to travel outside your local health board area, don’t do it.” To people in other parts of the country, we are saying, “If you don’t need to, don’t travel into those areas.”

There are always challenges with telling people to stay in their local authority or health board area. None of us has in our head the exact geographical boundaries. We will put advice on the Scottish Government website, with postcodes and maps of the areas for people to look at. The first time we did that was when we had local restrictions in place in Gretna and Annan. That was very successful, and we will seek to do the same now, to give people the guidance that they will be looking for.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

In attending churches around the country, my experience has been that they have been very strict about adhering to the guidelines, and I think that that is true of other faith groups as well. I am grateful that there are to be no further restrictions on faith groups at the moment. Can the First Minister offer any encouragement to faith groups about their continuing adherence to the guidelines and about moving forward?

The First Minister

I am very pleased that we have not had to impose any further restrictions, or to re-impose restrictions, on worship and faith groups. It is important that we try not to do that. I will be candid, though: it is one of the things that we had to consider for the central belt over the past few days, although I decided not to do it.

My appeal to faith groups is to be very rigorous in their application of the guidance in their places of worship—as I know they are already being—to make sure that the risks that are undoubtedly there when people come together in any setting are minimised as far as possible. If that happens, I will be very hopeful. I am very keen that, as we go through the different stages of the pandemic, we do not have to impose further restrictions on faith and worship.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow)

I do not know who was responsible for the kite flying and briefing over the past few weeks, but they should be ashamed of themselves, whoever they are, given the impact on those who are already fearful for their futures. I trust that the First Minister will sort those people out.

Many people will immediately be without work, and, because of the nature of their contracts, they will now be left with little or no income. What Scottish Government support is in place to directly help those workers now, many of whom are on the minimum wage and have little or no job security? They have been seeking to implement the ever-changing rules, and their reward has been a blanket ban. And what will success look like? In Glasgow, for example, the closedown coincides with schools being on holiday, so it will surely be difficult to see accurately what has caused the change if there is any.

The First Minister

I guess that the people whom Johann Lamont is inviting me to “sort out” are advisers to me and the Government who, right now, are working around the clock to help this country through a pandemic. I will certainly not sort them out; I will continue to be deeply grateful for every single thing that they are doing. That was a disgraceful thing to ask of me.

I will not stop discussing openly the things that we are contemplating doing. Although I recognise the risks and the downsides to that, it is important that we are as open as possible with people across the country, not just about what we are having to consider but about the difficult balances we are trying to strike. People are capable of understanding that. This is really difficult for everybody, but the more that we can give an insight into the decision-making process and the challenges that are involved in that, the better people will be able to understand, and the better that people are able to understand, the better we can persuade them to comply with the difficult things that we are asking them to do.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I might have missed this in her statement, but I ask the First Minister to tell Parliament whether the new regulations will have any impact on the current regulations on key relatives visiting those who are in care and nursing homes, particularly in Ayrshire. If there is new guidance on visiting to be issued, when will it be published?

The First Minister

Before I answer John Scott, I should say that, just before I sat down, Johann Lamont reminded me from a sedentary position that I had not addressed part of her question. She asked what we are going to do for workers. I have addressed that question by referring to the financial support that we are making available. I remind her that the people that she has just invited me to “sort out” are also workers. Perhaps it would be good if she bore that in mind.

John Scott raises an important question. We hope that the current state of the virus will not have an impact on the advances we are seeking to make in visiting patients in hospitals and residents in care homes. In fact, just as this is about keeping schools open and keeping as many business open as possible, part of the reason for making these restrictions to stem the spread of the virus is to protect our ability to keep moving forward and to get much more normality into the ability of people to visit their relatives in care homes. That is really important to us, and the health secretary is taking the matter extremely seriously.

The Presiding Officer

That concludes questions on the First Minister’s statement. I encourage members who are leaving the chamber to be careful and to observe social distancing on leaving the chamber, particularly when going down the stairs into the garden lobby. I also encourage members to wipe down their seats if they are leaving and another colleague is coming in. There are restricted numbers of members in the chamber at the moment, so please wipe down your seat if another member is taking your place.

Scottish Qualifications Authority National Qualifications 2020-21

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on the assessment of Scottish Qualifications Authority national qualifications in 2020-21. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As we have just heard from the First Minister, further restrictions are now necessary in order to bring the R number back below 1, to stop the virus running out of control and to save lives. This is not, however, a return to the spring. We are not closing schools. Instead, keeping them open is the priority.

We all know just how disruptive Covid-19 is to the awarding of national qualifications. We found ourselves in a position in which schools closed with very little time to prepare, course work was either incomplete or inaccessible and, of course, the exams could not go ahead. We saw that there was no ready-made solution from the fact that the rest of the United Kingdom faced similar difficulties. In setting out our solution, however, the fact is that we did not get it right for all young people. We apologised and we acted to fix the situation.

This year, we have more time to prepare, but some things are still the same.

The virus remains with us; it is still as virulent and it is still as infectious, so we cannot plan for business as usual—that is simply not possible. Work towards exams would normally have started in May, when the schools were still closed, so pupils have already lost a significant amount of precious teaching time and we cannot predict—no one can—how much more time might be lost to Covid-19 in the coming months. Finally, we simply do not know what the public health position will look like in spring and summer.

However, we can do three things: we can learn from last year, consult our teachers and educationalists and listen to the experts in the design of awarding systems. In every decision that we take, we can hold fast to our shared aim to build an approach that fairly and consistently recognises the hard work of individual pupils. The approach must not place undue burdens on them or on Scotland’s teachers and it has to have the confidence of the public, employers and the rest of the education system. That is what we have been doing over recent weeks and I can now set out to the Parliament the progress that we have made and the conclusions that we have reached.

We have sought to learn from last year. As I set out previously to the Parliament, I commissioned two key pieces of work. I asked the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to extend the scope of its review of curriculum for excellence to include the question of the role that exams should play in a modern education system. That work will go forward in the coming months but, to inform the coming year, I asked Professor Mark Priestley to carry out an independent review to look at events following the cancellation of the examination diet. Professor Priestley has submitted his report and recommendations and I thank him and his team at the University of Stirling for their excellent work and, in particular, for the pace at which they have completed it.

We have also consulted widely. The Scottish Qualifications Authority set out its initial proposals on modifications to assessments in 2021 and it has never seen a more extensive response. Thousands of individual submissions were received, and I thank everyone who took the time to engage with that work. I have personally consulted young people, including pupils in the senior phase with whom I spent valuable time in discussion last Thursday. We have heard the views of parents, teachers and staff at colleges and universities, and the issues have been discussed with stakeholders across our education system, including those who are represented on the education recovery and qualifications contingency groups. Of course, I have also consulted medical and scientific experts. Finally, we have listened to the SQA’s experts in the design of awarding systems, but also to our professional bodies, local authorities, schools and Education Scotland.

It is worth pointing out that all of that work comes at a time when the broader picture is of an education system that has successfully returned to full-time learning. Despite the virus, attendance remains at around 93 per cent for pupils. The additional safety measures and mitigations that we recommended and that teachers and staff have worked hard to put in place are working well. That has been confirmed by the Health and Safety Executive, which has now engaged with more than 500 schools on the implementation of the Covid-19 guidance. My thanks go to everyone for their exceptional efforts to reopen schools and deliver face-to-face education safely.

However, despite that progress, the virus remains the same, and the risk remains that there might be further disruptions for individual pupils, schools, colleges or more widely across the country during the course of this academic year. In that context, I have found the clear recommendations that Professor Priestley makes, regarding the approach to awarding in 2021 of great assistance to me in making decisions.

Due to the level of disruption that has already been caused by Covid and the likely disruption that some or all pupils and students face this academic year, a full exam diet is too big a risk to take; it would not be fair. Therefore, I have asked the chief examining officer to take an alternative approach to national 5 accreditation in 2021, rather than the usual exams. The alternative approach to awarding national 5 qualifications will be based on two key recommendations by Professor Mark Priestley. Those recommendations are:

“Suspension of the National 5 examinations diet in 2021, with qualifications awarded on the basis of centre estimation based upon validated assessments”

and, secondly,

“The development of a nationally recognised, fully transparent and proportionate system for moderation of centre-based assessment.”

Therefore, the alternative approach will be based on teacher judgment, supported by assessment resources, and quality assurance. That will include, where possible, specifying between two and four pieces of work per subject that will form the basis of arriving at a final award. The SQA will today publish broad guidance on evidence gathering and estimation, with a very clear focus on quality rather than quantity of that evidence. That will be followed, after the October break, by subject-specific guidance on the key pieces of work that young people will need to complete.

To support the process, the SQA will work with Education Scotland, local authorities, regional improvement collaboratives and others to support a local and national approach to moderation and quality assurance, including the provision of assessment resources.

Obviously, we must seek to maintain standards. The SQA will therefore work with schools and colleges during the year on the quality assurance of their pupils’ work. That will include the SQA looking at a sample of work from each school and college and feeding back to teachers and lecturers to ensure that standards are maintained. The SQA will build that system of quality assurance in collaboration with the education system, drawing on its existing expertise. To put it simply, an A in Aberdeen has to be the same as an A in Annan or anywhere else.

I want to make it clear to the Parliament, given the controversies of the previous awards process, what will not happen. First and foremost, awards will not be given or taken away on the basis of a statistical model or a school’s past performance. There will be no algorithm. Awards will be based on the progress of our young people and their work. That work and the judgment of the teacher, supported by appropriate quality assurance to maintain standards, will be the evidence on which grades are based.

In taking that decision on national 5 exams, we also need to think about highers and advanced highers. In a standard exam year, the national 5s constitute more than half of all exams taken. From a public health point of view, not having those exams significantly reduces the risk of the exams as a whole. It means that we can build an exam diet for highers and advanced highers that is as safe as it possibly can be, using all the coronavirus mitigations with which we have sadly become so familiar, including physical distancing and enhanced cleaning.

That means that the exams that determine the results with which most pupils leave school—the exams that determine most people’s future path into work, college or university—can go ahead as long as the public health guidance allows it. It also means that we can use the time in the school year that is freed up by cancelling the national 5 exams to make up some of the time that pupils lost at the end of last year. As a result, I can confirm that the higher and advanced higher exams will begin on 13 May, which is later than normal and gives pupils back approximately two weeks of the learning time that they lost this year. Certification day will remain as 10 August. That additional time, in conjunction with the course assessment modifications that the SQA has made following its consultation, gives the greatest chance of those exams being implemented fairly.

While I am taking steps that make space for higher and advanced higher exams next year, I am acutely aware that there is no way of knowing what circumstances we will face at that point. To avoid decisions being made in extremis, as quite simply had to be the case this year, a clear contingency plan will continue to be developed for those exams. That will include key checkpoints up to the February break to assess public health advice and, in the light of that, to reassess our plans. If necessary, we will award higher and advanced higher courses based on teacher professional judgment, supported by SQA quality assurance, taking account of classroom assessment evidence, including prelims where that is appropriate.

In deciding the way forward for this year’s exams, there is a reality that we must face. The coronavirus has not gone away—if anything, it is making a comeback. Our task is to build a system of awards that can be delivered despite coronavirus, and I believe that the plan that we have developed does that. It has evidence at its heart; it puts a robust system of quality assurance in place; and it works with teachers to award grades on the basis of their professional judgment. I believe that it is fair and rigorous and—of greatest importance—that it gives us the opportunity to recognise the achievements of young people in Scotland in these challenging days.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

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

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement. This has, of course, been an incredibly difficult time for teachers and young people, and we all thank them for their forbearance. However, we in the Conservatives believe that a full exam diet could and should take place next year, and that the onus is on the education secretary to make that happen or instead to justify why it cannot be achieved on his watch.

I am not convinced that full justification was offered in the statement for the cancellation of national 5s. It feels like the towel has been thrown in already. Nonetheless, I welcome the fact that a decision has been made.

Questions remain, however, so let me ask three. As national 5s will now be reliant on teacher judgment, how will the SQA apply national moderation to teacher estimates so as to avoid those estimates being downgraded by the SQA or overruled by ministers in the same chaotic way as they were this year?

Can the cabinet secretary guarantee that teachers will receive full guidance as soon as possible on how to assess the progress of national 5 pupils throughout the year?

If there is disruption to next year’s exams—I hope there will not be—and if highers or advanced highers cannot be sat, how can teachers assess progress if contingency plans are not announced or put in place until February next year? That is simply too late to revert or to announce an alternative. If the education secretary wants to restore the trust of parents, teachers and young people, he needs to get this right—and right now.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I echo the comments that Mr Greene made in relation to the contribution of teachers, which, as I indicated in my statement, I think has been outstanding in restoring the full-time education of children and young people and in sustaining education during really difficult times since the lockdown in March.

Mr Greene holds his opinion about the sustainability of a full exam diet next spring. I have carefully examined the public health evidence and the degree of risk that we would be taking were we to allow that diet to take its course. My judgment—and it is my judgment—is that the risks are too great. In coming to that judgment, I have consulted extensively within the education system, and concerns have been clearly expressed to me by local authorities, headteachers and pupils around the country regarding the implicit risks. However, it is a matter of judgment. Just now, the Government is addressing countless matters that are the subject of difficult judgment. None of that is straightforward.

On the whole question of moderation, work will be undertaken in the early part of this school year to support the understanding of standards within schools and to assist the moderation process at school and local level. The SQA and SQA appointees will be fully involved in that process at school level, and there will be engagement with teachers to enable that. Full guidance will be available at a subject-by-subject level and, as I have indicated, pieces of work to be issued by the SQA will form the basis upon which assessment can be undertaken.

As I said in my statement, the approach that we are taking on national 5 provides us with a foundation for assessment should there be any disruption to highers and advanced highers. I stress that I do not want that to be the case; I want a full higher and advanced higher diet to be undertaken, and I am creating more space for that to be enabled—I am de-risking it to enable that diet to take its course. However, should it be required, the approach that we are taking on teacher judgment and national 5 gives us a strong foundation for the higher assessment. Of course, as I indicated, we have opportunities to take stock as to whether such a contingency plan needs to be applied in the circumstances.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for early sight of his statement. I say “early,” but the truth is that his statement is very late. Teachers are months into teaching courses without knowing exactly what they should be teaching, how pupils will be assessed and what evidence they should have been gathering. They were told that exams would go ahead, although a final decision had not been reached, and they were told that courses would be amended to account for lost time, but not how, while days, weeks and months passed by.

Now we have a decision, so, first, how will the continuous assessment of national 4s and 5s and the exams at higher and advanced higher take account of pupils—

sometimes whole year groups—having to self-isolate, and perhaps more than once?

Secondly, can the Deputy First Minister promise that, next year, no pupil will be judged on anything except their own performance and ability? Finally, will he, even now, revisit this year’s appeals for those pupils who do not accept their school’s assessment and are still denied the right to appeal?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Iain Gray recounts circumstances in which several periods of self-isolation, for example, might disrupt a young person’s individual educational year. In my judgment, that would be the basis for making a case to the SQA around exceptional circumstances—a well-established process exists for that to be undertaken. We obviously want to minimise such occurrences, so other support is in place, such as digital learning through e-Sgoil, which is available now to support the learning of young people should their education be disrupted.

In relation to the assessment of the performance of young people, I have made clear that their performance will inform teacher judgment, which in turn will be the basis of awards. In relation to the point on appeals, Professor Priestley’s review indicates that we should consider a number of issues with regard to the appeal mechanisms that are available. I am committed to doing exactly that and we will consider the issues that Professor Priestley raised as part of our review.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for his statement and Professor Priestley for his contribution through the publication of his report. I noticed that the issue of assessment and estimation has been key and the Deputy First Minister mentioned that the SQA will produce guidance in those areas.

We know, however, that concerns existed before the Covid crisis about the estimation process in certain areas. What other support can be given to schools to ensure that the assessment and estimation process ensures fairness and consistency across all centres?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The whole process of assessment and estimation lies at the heart of the professionalism of the teaching profession. It is important that all interested parties, whether teachers and leaders in individual schools, local authorities or regional improvement collaboratives, work with Education Scotland and the SQA

to ensure that we enhance the assessment and estimation process that teachers undertake. It is a fundamental skill on which our pupils rely in order to have their performance assessed.

Over the course of the next few months, extensive engagement will take place, which will involve all those different players—I have consulted widely with local authorities about the steps that need to be taken to ensure that teachers are well supported to be able to undertake that task, with the direction and guidance that the SQA will offer as part of the process. Fundamentally, we need to enhance that capacity and we will do exactly that.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the unprecedented pressures that the further and higher education sectors face at this time. Throughout the pandemic, those sectors have faced the Government’s lack of clarity, and the mess that it made of this year’s exam grades significantly impacted them.

What discussions has the cabinet secretary had with representatives from the university and college sectors on the subject that is specific to today’s statement? What concerns or issues did they raise with him?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I really do not recognise the picture that Mr Halcro Johnston paints. I would have thought that the fact that we had an absolutely outstanding and record number of young people going into higher education in Scotland today might have been something to celebrate. Where was that in Mr Halcro Johnston’s question? It was maybe as prominent as the Conservative U-turn on tuition fees. Maybe Liz Smith could not bear the policy position at which her party was about to arrive—maybe that is why she is no longer its education spokesperson.

I do not recognise the world that Jamie Halcro Johnston talks about. We have had extensive discussion with the college and university sectors throughout all those assessment issues, and I have to compliment them on their willingness to engage constructively in finding solutions at a difficult time.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

What impact assessment has the education recovery group carried out on the assessment process for practical subjects such as sciences, home economics and technical subjects, which are vital to the curriculum but in relation to which social distancing is much more difficult?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Very

specific guidance has been given to the education system on all those areas. The guidance has been developed collaboratively to ensure that some of the practical issues that Rona Mackay raises can be properly addressed and that young people are able to have as much of the experience of these courses as is possible, given the wider constraints within which we have to operate, and the education recovery group has been involved in that discussion.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The cabinet secretary has already stated his intention to take forward recommendation 7 of the Priestley report on the appeals process. Can he clarify the basis on which that review will take place? Will it be independent of the Scottish Government and the SQA?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

No, it will not be. We will take it forward on the basis of the approach that would be expected of us, as a Government that is currently legislating to incorporate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into domestic legislation, and it will be undertaken consistent with those principles.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I welcome the responsible decision to cancel and replace national 5 exams. I cannot work out, though, why that logic does not also apply to highers. Can the Deputy First Minister explain his statement that cancelling national 5 exams frees up capacity for highers, given that those exams do not normally take place at the same time and, of course, each higher exam cannot be staggered, as every pupil must take it at the same time?

In response to a question that I asked a few weeks ago, the Deputy First Minister said that he wanted to avoid at all costs an increase in teachers’ workload. Given that teachers will have to simultaneously prepare higher pupils for exams and prepare the contingency plan, I cannot see how that is the case. However, can the Deputy First Minister at least assure me that, for national 5s, the assessment system that is being developed will be based on work that teachers and pupils are already doing and will not add something new on top of that?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

On Mr Greer’s last

point, yes, that will be the case. The approach that will be taken is designed to be entirely consistent with work that would ordinarily be undertaken in each subject curriculum.

On the point around the maintenance of the higher diet, my judgment, given the significant weight that is attached to higher qualifications as the key pathway to the next stage in the educational journey of young people, is that, if it is possible for us to sustain that diet, we should endeavour to do so. That is what has underpinned my decision making. I have tried to de-risk the situation by removing the national 5 exams from the exam diet, creating more time for learning and teaching than would ordinarily be the case at that time of year and providing the opportunity for further progress to be made in that respect.

I am keen to ensure that that approach does not in any way add to teachers’ workloads. The point that Mr Greer made about the importance of that work being consistent with the ordinary content of the curriculum is a key guide for the education system in relation to how young people should be prepared for assessment and, in some circumstances, examination.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

On the dates for the higher and advanced higher exams, does the education secretary think that two weeks is sufficient time for young people to make up the learning that has been missed?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

A combination of that and the fact that the SQA will make other changes to the examinations that will increase, for example, the optionality within individual courses, which will mean that young people are not required to undertake every aspect of the course, will create the circumstances in which the full opportunity for learning and teaching can be undertaken by young people in that context. We will still be wrestling with issues relating to the potential disruption to the school year, either individually or collectively at a local level. The digital learning approaches that were taken were designed to provide further reassurance in that respect.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

What will the Scottish Government put in place to support individual pupils and entire class groups who are asked to isolate—[

Inaudible

.]?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I referred to such issues in my reply to Beatrice Wishart’s question. We have in place a range of digital learning support, which is provided technically through the glow network and e-Sgoil—a partnership between the Scottish Government and Western Isles Council that has been extended to involve other local authorities. Good work is going on with teachers the length and breadth of Scotland providing learning to the digital learning platform, which can now be accessed by pupils from the whole country.

Further reinforcement opportunities are available for senior phase pupils—this adds to my response to Beatrice Wishart—as there are after-school sessions that pupils the length and breadth of Scotland can sign up to if they wish to. The sessions have been well subscribed to, as they provide another opportunity to reinforce the learning that young people undertake in our schools.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Given the welcome news that highers and advanced highers will go ahead, as far as we are aware, will the cabinet secretary put on the record that there is no intention at this stage to drop any of the subjects in the normal diet for highers and advanced highers?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

To my knowledge, there is no such intention.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

What assurances will the cabinet secretary give that the 2020-21 SQA assessment process will continue to build on the Scottish Government’s work to narrow the attainment gap to ensure that no pupil is left behind and that all pupils are able to achieve their full potential?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

In these disruptive times, it is important that we do all that we can to support young people to achieve their educational potential.

As I have explained today in my answers to a number of members’ questions, a variety of approaches are being taken to support digital learning, which is already available and can reinforce the learning that is undertaken by young people. If there is a disruption to education, there are opportunities for that to be taken forward. We are working to ensure that, in every circumstance, we have in place the full support to enable young people to fulfil their educational potential.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary highlighted the precious teaching time that was lost due to the lockdown and the impact that that will have on highers, which is why the decision has been taken to set later dates for the higher exam diet. What measures will be taken to ensure that the national 5 cohort is not disadvantaged by the time that was lost through the school lockdown period?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The young people who, traditionally, would be sitting national 5s will have more time, because, ordinarily, their learning and teaching would have ended at the Easter break and they would have gone on to study leave. Instead, they will have access to further learning opportunities after the Easter break.

Some schools change their curriculum and move on to another year group during May or June, and it will be up to individual schools to determine the optimal moment to do that. One of the key factors in that judgment should be whether young people who are presenting for national 5s have had adequate opportunity to maximise their potential in the estimating process that teachers will undertake in advance of submission at that stage in the spring of the final estimates to the SQA.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

What support will be provided to pupils who have additional support needs to help them deal with the changing circumstances and to ensure that they have an equal chance of success with their schoolwork?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Ordinarily, our education system must ensure that the needs of every young person are met and that every young person has the opportunity to fulfil their potential. That lies at the heart of the answer to Mr McMillan’s question, which relies on the extent to which the education system can fully meet all those needs. I give him the assurance that that consideration is uppermost in the thinking of local authorities and of the Government on that issue.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes questions on the statement. Before, we move to the next item of business, I remind members who are leaving the chamber to observe the social distancing measures that are in place across the campus.

Urgent Question

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

The Presiding Officer has selected an urgent question. As a result, decision time will be at around 6.15.

Covid-19 Outbreaks in Lothian Care Homes

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in response to the outbreak of Covid-19 at Redmill care home and Milford house care home in Lothian.

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

I have a number of points to make in my answer.

First, I express my condolences to the families who have lost loved ones in those two outbreaks. My thoughts also go to the families who have loved ones in the homes that are affected, to residents themselves, to staff who have tested positive, and to staff who are understandably upset and anxious for the residents for whom they care so much.

Neither of the homes has had previous outbreaks, nor have they been flagged as being either amber or red in assessments by the Care Inspectorate or the local director of public health. The Care Inspectorate will immediately conduct a root-cause analysis, as I have asked it to do, and will identify from that any further actions that we need to take in our winter preparedness work in the adult social care sector.

The local care home support and health protection teams are in direct contact with Milford and Redmill care homes to make sure that they have all the personal protective equipment that they need; to support them with their staffing, including use of NHS Lothian’s staff bank for staff who are self-isolating or who have tested positive; to make sure that that all relevant infection prevention and control measures are understood and are being implemented; and to make sure that both homes have the clinical care that they need for the residents who are affected.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Our thoughts are, of course, with those who have lost their lives, the families who are left behind, and the staff, who are doing their very best.

Over the past two days, I have been contacted by many staff members and by families of residents at the Redmill care home. I know that colleagues have had similar contact with Milford house. Staff and relatives need our 100 per cent support at this extremely difficult time.

Today, I spoke to HC-One Ltd about Redmill. It told me that the first positive test was on 25 September and that NHS Scotland was informed on that day but that the whole-home testing regime by NHS Scotland did not take place until six days later. Twenty-eight staff members are still waiting for results, and six staff members are waiting for a test. Some tests could not be given, because labels did not come with the kits. Twenty residents await results. Some people have not had results, despite having been tested on 28 September—nine days ago. One staff member received three sets of results, one received someone else’s results, and 20 results were returned as negative but with no information as to whom they belonged.

I really hope that the same has not happened at Milford house, because staff and residents deserve so much better than what appears, in this case, to be a shambles with the testing regime. If that is how it operates, how on earth can we get on top of the virus? The staff at the home deserve so much better than what they are being provided with through the testing regime. The owners of the home are not responsible for that. The staff and owners are doing their best; the testing regime is at fault.

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

I do not have the benefit of having the information that Mr Findlay has just provided, but I will look into the situation later today and give a detailed response tomorrow to him and other members who have a direct interest and concern.

The information that I have from NHS Lothian is that all the tests that were undertaken before the weekend have been returned and are in the test and protect system. That clearly differs from what Mr Findlay has told me, so we will pursue that in detail.

I know that, in Redmill, 37 staff and 18 residents have tested positive and that, in Milford house, 18 staff and 13 residents have tested positive. Results have come back, but Mr Findlay raises serious issues. I noted them as he spoke, but if he cares to send me the information directly so that I am absolutely sure about the facts as he understands them, we will investigate the matter urgently. If such problems exist, I will ensure that I understand exactly why they have occurred and what we are doing to resolve them. If the problems exist as Mr Findlay described them, we will ensure that they are not replicated across the system.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

I am more than happy to provide the information. HC-One has been extremely helpful in providing me with updated information today, and with information yesterday, for which I thank it. Today, I sent that information to NHS Lothian and the local health and social care partnership, so they have it. I ask the cabinet secretary for an immediate inquiry into what has happened, because the situation cannot continue when lives are at risk.

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

What I am about to say is in no way whatever intended to cast aspersions on what Mr Findlay has told me, but I have not had such information from NHS Lothian. I was not given it by the Care Inspectorate, which I spoke to this morning, or by Scottish Care, which I also spoke to this morning, and both of those organisations have been in contact with HC-One and the other provider.

When I get the information from Mr Findlay—I thank him for sending it; I am sure that it will be waiting for me when I get upstairs to my office—I will look at the position in great detail and will have it investigated and then get straight back to him and other members who might be affected, so that we understand exactly what has happened and what the facts are. If there has been a problem, we must understand why it has occurred and, importantly, ensure not only that it is resolved for the two care homes but that it is not replicated anywhere else in the system.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I have two requests for supplementaries. I can take them both, if members are brief.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

My thoughts are with the families and loved ones of the people at the care homes who have died from the virus.

Further to Neil Findlay’s questions, has NHS Lothian said that it believes that the Care Inspectorate’s guidelines have been met? Will the cabinet secretary investigate the ability to reopen the temporary laboratory at the University of Edinburgh, which has been put into hibernation? That would provide additional capacity for care home testing across east Scotland.

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

As I said, neither home has been flagged as being at the amber or red stage, either by the Care Inspectorate in its regular assessments or by the local director of public health. Assessments are made weekly and I get a report of them all. Neither home has appeared as amber or red.

As we know, neither home has had an outbreak before. Care home staff throughout the country are very concerned when their homes have positive cases, and, in the case of the two homes that we are talking about, I know how anxious and upset the staff are, because this has not happened before. The staff are very worried.

That is why the root cause analysis is so important. We need to understand what has happened in two care homes that have, as far as all the data that I have shows, been following all the guidance and all the procedures.

As, I think, the First Minister said in her statement, we are busy increasing national health service capacity across the country. The lab in Edinburgh to which Miles Briggs referred has been returned to its earlier work. We need to maintain increased capacity not only for Covid testing but for NHS testing, so that normal diagnostic and other tests can be done as we remobilise the service. We cannot give that up, because, if we did, we would not be able to do some of the procedures that we are doing.

We have scaled up NHS Scotland capacity and—as the First Minister said in her statement—we will report back on the review that we are doing as we scale up. We see that the UK Lighthouse Labs Network is also scaling up, so we will consider how we can strategically use that additional capacity for other areas of testing that are clinically advised. In regard to that last point, which related to care homes, we are incrementally transitioning all our care home staff testing away from Lighthouse labs and into NHS ones. That is partly to protect that testing from when Lighthouse has to deal with a UK-wide surge in demand, which can sometimes increase turnaround times.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Like colleagues, I associate myself with the comments about the devastating impact of the outbreaks.

Can the cabinet secretary tell us what enhanced infection prevention and control mechanisms will be put in place in the care homes, and about the lessons that can be taken from the outbreaks not only in Lothian but across the country? Has she seen the research from NHS Lothian about the correlation between the size of care homes and outbreaks?

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

I have seen that research, which is backed by data that the Care Inspectorate has produced.

The issue is partly about the size of care homes, but it is also about their configuration. For example, where a care home is configured in such a way that a whole floor can be put into isolation, responding to cases of infections that can break out in those settings—Covid, norovirus, flu or other infections—is more straightforward.

However, overall, it appears that the data is clear that the infection prevention and control work in smaller care homes is more effective in having an impact.

There is more work to do on that, and there are obviously implications for the business models of some care homes that will affect how they go forward. All that is, of course, factored into the independent review that Derek Feeley is leading on.

Enhanced infection prevention and control is assisted by what we have now introduced, and the majority of care homes have signed up to that. It is called the safety tool. It, essentially, the same safety huddle tool that we have used so successfully in hospital settings as part of our patient safety programme. It has been transferred over, and is being applied appropriately for the care home setting. That allows the Government, the home, the Care Inspectorate and local directors of public health regularly to see not only PPE stock levels—we continue to supply that, where it is needed—but staffing rotas.

We want to open up visiting, where it is possible to do so safely, but it requires a certain level of staffing. The safety tool allows us to see, daily and weekly, where homes might need additional support, either from their local NHS or health protection teams.

The core—basic infection prevention and control—is the absolute standard that we need to ensure exists in all our care homes. The safety huddle tool helps us to identify where there might be difficulties in delivering that, so that we can intervene and offer support directly.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

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

Before we proceed, I have to say that there is now no time in hand whatsoever, so I am afraid that, if members take interventions, they will have to absorb them into their allocated time.

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-22955, in the name of Michael Russell, on legislative consent to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Today, we are faced with no ordinary decision about whether to give or withhold approval for a Westminster bill, for this debate is actually about a decision regarding the value of the Scottish Parliament and the people whom we serve. It is about whether we are prepared to stand up for them or allow a United Kingdom Government to

“fundamentally overwrite, and undermine, a material part of the system of devolution that has operated in the UK for more than two decades”.

That devolution settlement came into being because of a decisive vote by the people of Scotland in 1997. I am happy to acknowledge Scotland’s debt to the Labour Party and to Donald Dewar, who legislated for that devolution referendum. My party campaigned with the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party in favour of establishing this institution. We did not agree on the process that led to that vote but, when the choice came, the Scottish National Party backed what the people of Scotland wanted and now, when that choice is again in front of us, we do so again.

I was part of that campaign and worked with many, including Alex Rowley, to persuade our fellow citizens to mark their ballot papers with a double yes. I am in the same company again, although I do not relish the circumstances. I am sure that Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens will repeat today their commitment to what the people wanted then, as will we. Our vote will follow our voice. Alas, the Tories, no doubt, will again be true to their stance then—a stance that was taken directly against the will of the Scottish people. The Tories were against empowering their fellow citizens then, and they are still against doing that 23 years later. Leopards do not change their spots.

The Tories, having been rejected then, have gone on being rejected, most recently in last December’s Westminster election; yet, despite that, they still seek to take a wrecking ball to Scotland’s Parliament and Scotland’s democracy. That was not in their manifesto, but it was clearly in their minds then and always has been.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the internal market bill is very much about protecting jobs and investment in Scotland, which is absolutely critical?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No, I do not. Indeed,

The Ferret

’s

fact-checking service proves that that is not the case.

As I said, wrecking Scotland’s Parliament was not put to the Scottish people by the Conservatives, but it is what they intended to do, and it is what they are trying to do. The memorandum that is before us makes it clear that, if the bill becomes law,

“The legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament and the executive competence of Scottish Ministers as they have been understood since 1998 would in many respects cease to exist.”

As well as an assault on devolution, the bill is a recipe for regulatory incoherence and a race to the bottom. It is also a breach of international law. The fundamental principle of the ministerial code is that ministers must not knowingly break the law. That in itself is an incontrovertible reason why the Scottish ministers cannot recommend legislative consent for the bill, but I also argue that no member of a Scottish Parliament who is elected to serve the people of Scotland could ever recommend consent to such a bill.

Members will be familiar with the main provisions, but let me go through them. In parts 1 and 2, the bill contains sweeping new blanket mutual recognition and non-discrimination provisions. Regardless of the views of the Parliament or the wishes of the people of Scotland, they would require Scotland to accept lower standards relating to food, as pointed out by Food Standards Scotland; the environment, as pointed out by Scottish Environment LINK; and building materials, as pointed out by the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. The scope of those powers can be unilaterally changed by UK ministers, and only by them.

There are new measures for mutual recognition of professional qualifications, which cause grave concern to bodies such as the General Teaching Council for Scotland. There is a new oversight body that is tasked with second-guessing the policy choices of the Parliament, including on public services such as the health service or public water supplies.

Measures in part 5 of the bill break international law and betray a cynical disregard for Northern Ireland, and is already alienating many, including the European Union.

There are sweeping new spending powers in part 6 that threaten the devolved Scottish budget and transfer decision making over areas of devolved spending from the Scottish Government to the UK Government. The fact that state aid will be reserved could affect, for example, agricultural subsidy, and the whole of the eventual act would be placed permanently beyond the powers of this Parliament to mitigate or ameliorate. For those reasons, the bill is wholly unacceptable and should be rejected.

The deceit that has been practised by the UK Government with regard to the bill is now a matter of public record, thanks to yesterday’s leak of documents that show the truth about how it was deliberately withheld from the devolved Governments.

There have been other deceits, too, the first of which is the ridiculous assertion that the bill represents a “power surge”. The opposite is true, as the explanatory notes make clear. In fact, there will be a new, blanket constraint on the exercise of the Parliament’s powers, and the scope of the constraints can be adjusted at any time at the discretion of UK Government ministers, regardless of other views.

Secondly, assurances have repeatedly been given that the bill will not lead to a race to the bottom in standards, but the UK currently enjoys high standards by virtue of European Union laws still applying during the transition period. Under the bill, if Scotland wished to maintain those standards, we would still be forced to recognise lower standards that were set elsewhere in the UK. [

Interruption

.] No, I will not give way. I am just coming to one of the member’s key assertions.

The UK Government has blocked every proposed move to provide legal guarantees that high environmental, animal welfare and food safety standards would prevail.

Thirdly, I rebut the claim that the bill is necessary merely in order to replace at UK level the system of EU market rules. In fact, the bill introduces a system of unqualified powers for UK ministers to impose, in effect, rules on the whole of the UK, even in devolved areas, which is the very opposite of the principle of co-decision and agreement between sovereign member states that lies at the heart of the EU rules. The EU single market rules also recognise policy objectives alongside market considerations, and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are crucial aspects of them.

I turn to the issue of jobs. Mr Lockhart’s amendment says that 550,000 jobs will be protected by the bill. That is nonsense—in fact, it is nonsense on stilts, as was exposed on

The Ferret

’s fact-checking website last night. [

Interruption

.] Conservative members do not like the truth.

At the end of December, the UK and Scotland will leave the Brexit transition period. The transition is ending because of the astonishing and reckless decision of Boris Johnson to refuse the extension that was on offer, despite the fact that we are in a global pandemic and a deep economic recession. Even at this late stage, the possibility of leaving in the worst possible way, with no deal, remains. Even if a deal is reached, it will be a low deal that is vastly inferior to what we experience now and hugely disadvantageous to business and disruptive to everyday life.

The real jobs threat comes not from the devolved Administrations but from the Brexiteer ultras who have captured the Conservative Party and those members in this chamber who have meekly accepted their writ, undoubtedly because it saves their own jobs.

The way to avoid all that damage is not only clear but to hand. We can do so by returning to the voluntary common frameworks process that was devised by the devolved and UK Governments, on which it has been possible to make progress over the past few years, despite our differences over EU exit. Frameworks are based on the principles of equal negotiation and agreement. If there are any missing areas, as Michael Gove has claimed very late in the day, we commit ourselves to closing those gaps. We are also willing to act as though all the frameworks are already in force while they are being finalised, and I think that the same commitment is being made in Wales. If the UK Government acts in the same way, we could move on from the present impasse and the deepening crisis.

The bill is not only unacceptable to the devolved Governments; it is also unacceptable to a wide range of organisations and individuals across Scottish society who are deeply worried.

Of course, across the chamber, there are differing views on Scotland’s ultimate constitutional destination, but regardless of those views, we can come together today to say on behalf of the people of Scotland that we do not consent to the bill. We can stand up against this Tory power grab and urge the UK Government to change course.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees not to consent to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, as it reduces and constrains the competence of the Scottish Parliament and breaches international law.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Bruce Crawford, convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee, to open on behalf of the committee.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I begin by thanking all the committee members for their hard work and commitment in completing so many reports this week. I also thank our clerks for the significant help and advice that they have provided in our work.

It is with some regret that I speak on behalf of only eight members of the committee this afternoon. As members know, I have always sought as convener to try, where possible, to reach a consensus on committee reports, and in the main we have managed to do that. However, there is a clear division of views on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill between the majority of the committee and our Conservative Party colleagues. That is disappointing, given that the other eight members of the committee have agreed that the bill undermines the whole basis of devolution.

Our view is that devolution cannot work if the Westminster Government simply imposes its view of how the UK’s constitutional arrangements should evolve following Brexit. Unfortunately, the bill aims to do just that, both in its substance and given the way that it has been handled.

Our most significant concern is with the market access principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination. The mutual recognition principle, in particular, is potentially much more far reaching than the equivalent EU principle, for three primary reasons. First, the list of exclusions from the application of the principle on public interest grounds is much narrower. Secondly, UK ministers have the power to amend that list without a requirement to seek consent from or consult the devolved Governments. The third reason is the asymmetrical structure of the UK internal market.

Given the relative size of the English economy and population, it will inevitably be market forces that determine regulatory standards. Why, then, would any devolved Government want to potentially put its economy at a competitive disadvantage by seeking higher regulatory standards that could then be undermined by imports from other parts of the UK that did not need to meet those standards? In reality, that would mean that regulatory standards that were agreed by the UK Parliament would, in effect, be imposed on the devolved nations.

The committee heard that that approach is significantly different from the approach that is taken in the EU and in other internal markets. Dr Emily Lydgate from the University of Sussex told us:

“The core of any approach to an internal market that is as integrated as the UK’s has to be harmonised rules that have a strong ... consultative process underlying them. The rules cannot be set by one of the countries.”—[

Official Report, Finance and Constitution Committee,

23 September 2020; c 4.]

The committee’s view is that it is unacceptable that the UK Government should seek to impose, in effect, new reservations on the devolved competences through the bill. This is not “myth-making”, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would have it, but a clear consequence of the proposed market access principles in the context of the relative size of England’s population and economy.

The UK Government has argued that the agreement of common frameworks means that the market access principles will apply only in a limited number of policy areas, but it is not clear how common frameworks can address the threat to devolution in the bill. In areas where the devolved Governments may wish to have higher standards than the minimum standards that are agreed in frameworks, they will potentially be rendered ineffective by the market access principles. Consequently, there needs to be far greater clarity about how both statutory and non-statutory frameworks would interact with the market access principles.

The committee also considered the provisions in the bill to reserve state aid. The committee agrees with the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government that state aid is a devolved matter. Any future legislation on subsidy control should be agreed between all the four Governments and legislatures across the UK through the common frameworks process. The committee therefore recommends that the reservation of subsidy control is unnecessary and should be removed from the bill.

Part 6 of the bill will provide the UK Government with a single, comprehensive statutory power to provide financial assistance across a range of policy areas throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. The committee’s view is that it is regrettable that part 6 has not been subject to any public or parliamentary consultation. It is also regrettable that the views of the devolved Governments were not sought.

We reiterate the findings of our report on structural funds post-Brexit—in particular, that any UK-wide replacement for EU structural funding should replicate some aspects of the current structural funds approach. We consider the decision-taking powers that the Scottish Government currently exercises under structural funds should not be reduced under any future UK approach.

The committee previously recommended that there is an onus on all four Governments and legislatures in the UK to work constructively together to seek a solution to the complex and challenging issues arising from leaving the EU internal market. The committee recommended that that must be achieved through mutual trust and respect for the UK’s existing constitutional arrangements. The committee concludes that it is highly regrettable that, in relation to the internal market bill, that has not happened. The committee is dismayed that the UK Government has instead adopted a hierarchical approach, through which its default position is to impose new limitations on devolution that go way beyond the previous limitations of EU membership.

The committee’s view is that devolution cannot work on the basis of the Westminster Government imposing its view of how the UK’s constitutional arrangements should evolve following Brexit. The committee therefore recommends that the Parliament does not agree to consent to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Dean Lockhart to speak to and move amendment S5M-22955.1 on behalf of the Conservatives.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There has been a lot of noise surrounding the UK internal market proposals, but when further restrictions on economic activity have just been announced, surely the priority must be to protect the 550,000 jobs and livelihoods and the 60 per cent of trade that depend on barrier-free access to the UK internal market.

That is certainly the view of key stakeholders, such as the Confederation of British Industry and NFU Scotland, which have given evidence that the internal market is extremely important—more important than the EU market and the rest of the world put together. That is also our priority.

On the other side of the debate, I recognise that there are legitimate questions about how the proposals might work in practice, but too much focus has been on constitutional scaremongering and hypothetical concerns. Take, for example, paragraph 13 of the legislative consent memorandum, which claims that the bill will result in declining standards—what the cabinet secretary referred to as the “race to the bottom”, which is a claim utterly devoid of any factual evidence. The inconvenient truth for the Scottish National Party is that the UK Government has introduced higher domestic standards than the EU has in many areas.

Just weeks ago—[

Interruption

.] Let me make progress. Just weeks ago, the first major free trade agreement following Brexit—the economic partnership with Japan—was signed. Far from lowering standards, the agreement goes way beyond the scope of the EU-Japan free trade agreement and has increased the number of protected geographical indications for Scottish produce. That means that Scottish salmon, cheese, wool and beef will now have much higher levels of protection in the Japanese market.

The SNP’s poster child for lowering standards is the proposed free trade agreement with the US. When, at committee, I challenged Ivan McKee to give real examples of his concerns about those lower standards, his response was: “All concerns are hypothetical.” There we have it—a long history, as well as very recent examples, of high standards being adopted by the UK Government, in direct contrast and in contradiction to the hypotheticals that we have heard from the other side.

The memorandum goes on to claim that the bill will “undermine the powers” of this Parliament, when quite the opposite is true. At the end of the transition period, this Parliament will enjoy more than 100 new powers coming from the EU, making it more powerful than ever. [

Interruption

.] My colleague just said that it is a power surge—it absolutely is. As we all know, the SNP wants to surrender every one of those powers back to the EU, in what would be the biggest power surrender that this Parliament has ever seen.

The Scottish Government’s motion states that the bill will reduce and constrain the competence of the Scottish Parliament. Again, that is completely untrue, because the agreed approach of all four nations is that the mutually agreed common frameworks will regulate the vast majority of the additional powers coming back from the EU. [

Interruption

.] Let me make an important point. Those frameworks will deliver agreed standards as well as dynamic divergence in areas in which devolved Administrations want to take a different approach. We support all those objectives, but there still has to be a mechanism in place to deal with residual elements of trade that will sit outside those agreed common frameworks.

That is where the bill comes into play. [

Interruption

.] I will take an intervention in a second.

Witnesses such as Professor Michael Keating recognised the need for such a fallback mechanism. He said in evidence that the common frameworks

“will cover most issues. If something arises that is not covered by the common frameworks, there should be a mechanism for dealing with that.”—[

Official Report, Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee

, 24 September 2020; c 32.]

That is the fundamental point. The bill will apply only as a default mechanism to a residual element of trade that falls outside agreed common frameworks. On that basis, to say that the bill will cripple the Scottish Parliament and its devolved competence, as the First Minister has repeatedly said, is wholly misleading.

Take minimum unit pricing for alcohol, for example. That is a good example that the SNP uses. A divergent approach by the Scottish Parliament will be allowed in the future. That means that alcohol that is produced elsewhere in the UK can be sold in Scotland only if it complies with minimum pricing in Scotland. Contrast that with the position under EU law, whereby the Scottish Government had to defend that divergent approach through the courts.

In his opening remarks, the cabinet secretary talked about the United Kingdom no longer being a partnership of equals. The real test of any partnership is how a partner reacts during a crisis. We have seen the strength of the UK partnership delivering for Scotland during this time of crisis. There has been £16 billion of additional support as part of the UK Government’s Covid response, the UK furlough scheme has saved more than 900,000 jobs in Scotland, and the bill will deliver even more investment to Scotland.

What has the cabinet secretary’s contribution been during this period of crisis? He has spent time and money on an unwanted second referendum, walked away from negotiations on the internal market, and interfered with the Brexit negotiations. When the cabinet secretary questions the partnership of equals, he is the one trying to undermine the partnership. [

Interruption

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is winding up.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Scottish Government’s motion refers to a breach of international law—perhaps that is what the member wanted to intervene on. On that very issue, let me quote what Mr Russell told the

Finance and Constitution Committee last week. He said:

“there is nothing unlawful about the House of Commons ... preparing a bill. It ... should never have come to the House of Commons, but that is not the same as it being illegal.”—[

Official Report, Finance and Constitution Committee

, 30 September 2020; c 11.]

For once, I agree with the cabinet secretary.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must conclude there.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I conclude by emphasising the vital importance of the Scottish Parliament protecting jobs and livelihoods during this crisis. That is why we will vote for legislative consent at decision time.

I move amendment S5M-22955.1, to leave out from “not to consent” to end and insert:

“to consent to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, as it will protect 550,000 jobs and livelihoods across Scotland during an unprecedented economic crisis, deliver significant new powers to the Scottish Parliament and secure additional direct investment from the UK Government in Scotland.”

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In opening the debate for Labour, I want to make it clear that we will not give consent to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. Let me be clear: we will not give support to any measures that will reduce and constrain the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

As a political party, Labour is committed to devolution. For the avoidance of doubt, the bill is a full-on attack on the existing devolution settlement. Devolution has worked for Scotland and, with the economic uncertainty that we face now, further devolution is required to build a better Scotland. However, instead of taking the best course of action to protect the UK internal market through the collaboration and co-operation of all nations, we have a take-it-or-leave-it approach from Boris Johnson and his Tory chums. Make no mistake: those Tory chums, including the Scottish Tories who are sitting in the chamber, will put Johnson and his interests before the interests of the people of Scotland. I say to all those who are worried about the future of Scotland that the greatest threat to the future of Scotland, its economy and its relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom is Boris Johnson and all the Scottish Tories who have lined up behind him in blind loyalty.

That is why I say that the Tory party wants to distract from the real issues in the bill by claiming that the argument is about independence. It has nothing to do with independence, but everything to do with the UK Government removing powers from the Scottish Parliament and, ultimately, from the Scottish people.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Surely, the member agrees—as I do—with Scotland’s trade union movement, which has said that if the

“UK Government proceed with the Bill, against the wishes of the Scottish Parliament it makes the case for a second independence referendum unanswerable”?

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It certainly demonstrates that the greatest threat to the United Kingdom is Boris Johnson and his clapping Tories who sit behind him.

As an added arrogance, the bill breaches international law—a fact that was readily admitted by the Northern Ireland secretary in the House of Commons. The bill is now under legal proceedings from the EU as a result of that breach.

Frankly, the whole thing is a disgrace that will have massive repercussions for the UK’s international reputation, which has already suffered over the past few years of the Conservative Government’s failures. However, it is not just that the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill breaks international law, or that it drives a coach and horses through devolution, but that it paves the way, in my view, for private and multinational companies to force their way into key public services in Scotland. The bill will lead to a race to the bottom in many areas of our daily lives.

The overwhelming evidence from across the world is that, in this day and age, we must have more regulation, not less. The idea that everything should be left to the market is not only outdated but dangerous; its time has come and gone.

It seems incredible to be ploughing on regardless with the bill and the Tories’ Brexit plan. We have supported the Scottish Government to make the case for a Brexit extension, which is absolutely necessary at this time.

Interest rates are at rock bottom and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has never borrowed so much, with public debt now more than 100 per cent of the size of our economy. That comes on top of massive increases in unemployment because of Covid and worrying forecasts for further unemployment to come. The pandemic has wrecked our economy, but the economic cost of a no-deal Brexit could be two or three times as bad as the impact of Covid, according to a report by the London School of Economics. Surely, anyone looking at that would say that it is absurd to continue down that path and that we need to think again; that would be anyone but Johnson and his Tories.

I say, “Think again.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Patrick Harvie to open for the Green Party. You have four minutes.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

This has been an extraordinary process leading to an extraordinary bill, which poses an extraordinary threat to us all. The process cut right through the discussion of common frameworks and began with a short consultation that could not have been more perfectly timed to coincide with the parliamentary recesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It involved the refusal of the secretary of state who is responsible for the bill to come and give evidence; it included no draft bill for consultation; and it included a clear threat to legislate without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

As I understand it, the Scottish and Welsh Governments were still asking to see the bill during a meeting of the joint ministerial committee when a photo of the press release announcing its publication was leaked on Twitter. That could not have been more shambolic.

The substance of the bill poses an extraordinary threat, too. The direct assault on the Parliament’s democracy—this democratic authority—comes from the political party that opposed the creation of the Parliament in the first place. The bill is not an insurance policy; it is a wrecking ball.

Where mutual respect genuinely exists between jurisdictions, co-operation is possible, even when political parties with very different politics are in power. The past 20 years show us that. However, that shocking power grab is what makes co-operation impossible. There is no incentive at all for the UK Government to negotiate or compromise if it has already taken a decision to ignore and overrule Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and even international law. That is why I am pleased to say that more than 6,000 people have signed up to support the Scottish Green Party’s campaign against the bill.

Beyond the extraordinary substance of the bill and its extraordinary process, there is an extraordinary threat, which raises a deeper concern about the true agenda of the current UK Government. It is encapsulated not only in the bill but in that Government’s trade agenda. It is apparent from the speech that Liz Truss gave to the free market extremist lobby group, the Cato Institute, a couple of years ago, in which she complained of a “thicket of regulation” and welcomed the race-to-the-bottom agenda on food, safety, public services, public health and environmental protection.

Liz Truss is far from alone in the UK Government in her attitude toward those issues, as shared with a right-wing, anti-environment, anti-social, climate-change-denying outfit such as the Cato Institute. The UK Government just appointed Tony Abbott, for goodness’ sake, to the UK Board of Trade. He has worked with Nigel Lawson’s dishonest climate denial lobby group; he has denied basic climate science for years and called it a “cult”.

The UK Government is willing to bring people like that into government. It is willing to break international law and render itself untrustworthy to both international partners and to Governments elsewhere in these islands. The UK Government is willing to undermine human rights and to overturn devolution. I agree with the STUC’s comment, which I quoted to Mr Rowley, that if the UK Government makes good on its threat to pass the bill in defiance of a refusal by this Parliament to consent to it, that will make

“the case for a second independence referendum unanswerable.”

That is because the bill does one thing very clearly: it exposes the reality of the choice that Scotland faces. In the context of the current UK Government, that choice is between direct rule and independence.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The bill emerged from a hurried white paper in the summer, and it is being blasted through Westminster at high speed. The bill exists to smooth a trade deal with the United States of America. It gives UK ministers the power to sweep away objections from devolved Administrations on matters such as food safety and environmental safety.

I have been astonished to hear UK ministers say that the Northern Ireland protocol was done in haste and so cannot be relied upon. Those very same ministers are rushing through this legislation at breakneck speed and with a strong-arm guillotine and they do not even blush.

I was very interested in the evidence that expert witnesses gave to the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee. Professor Michael Dougan wrote in a submission that

“many trade systems that rely on mutual recognition ... also incorporate multiple safeguards into its application”.

There are none in the bill. Professor Michael Keating pointed out in his evidence that most systems with “internal markets” are “federal”, such that each Administration within it has a say. This bill gives power to one secretary of state.

I would prefer joint ministerial committees to be up and running, with a dispute-resolution process to keep the internal market moving. With frameworks agreed by all four Administrations, their detailed implementation can be left to the individual Administrations, who would be safe in the knowledge that the fundamentals of the internal market were protected.

My committee colleague Beatrice Wishart asked about fire safety standards, pointing out that

“Peter Drummond—a senior member of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland—said that Scotland’s more robust fire safety regulations could fall foul of the bill”

and noting that, if we wanted

“to change or toughen its existing standards, the bill would appear to come into force against it.”

She further noted that, in response to Mr Drummond’s concerns, the UK Government had said

“that the Scottish Parliament will continue to be able to set its own regulations.”

However, as Professor Dougan pointed out,

“Technically speaking, the UK Government is correct, but only if we totally ignore the bill that we are talking about.”—[

Official Report

,

Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee

, 24 September 2020; c 19.]

We might have thought that someone would have to be a pretty high-ranking office holder of the Boris Johnson fan club to think that this is an honest piece of legislation, but it seems that we have a number of those individuals in the chamber today. That is before we get to the brazen admission that the bill will break international law. So much for the party of law and order: the Scottish Conservatives still stand by the bill.

The bill is unnecessary. It is rushed. It is ill conceived. It will undermine the United Kingdom partnership, put power in the hands of just one minister and break international law. The Scottish Parliament should reject the legislative consent motion and the UK Government should withdraw the bill without delay.