Scottish Parliament, 17 March 2021

243 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

Human Right to a Healthy Environment

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

Good afternoon. I remind members that social distancing measures are in place in the chamber and across the Holyrood campus, and to take care to observe those measures, including when entering and exiting the chamber. Please use only the aisles and walkways to access your seat and when moving around the chamber.

The first item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-24212, in the name of Ruth Maguire, on the human right to a healthy environment. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes the recommendations of the First Minister’s Advisory Group on Human Rights Leadership, which were published in 2018; welcomes the subsequent establishment of the Scottish Government’s National Taskforce for Human Rights, which has focused on developing these into specific recommendations for legislation; looks forward to receiving the Taskforce’s recommendations and to advancing the discussion of how to further human rights in Scotland’s devolved context; notes the view that the concept of a Human Right to a Healthy Environment must be central to these developments, given what it considers has been the recent progress in international thinking on environmental rights, including the UN’s Special Rapporteur’s “16 principles”; notes what it sees as the unequal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have been in putting important aspects of environmental rights in the spotlight, including the need to care for global biodiversity and the importance of access to good quality and local greenspace, particularly as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill progresses through the Parliament; acknowledges the importance of the right to a healthy environment for children and young people’s human rights, including in Cunninghame South, and welcomes the reported plan to bring forward proposals for a human rights bill in the next parliamentary session, to help underpin what it believes is Scotland’s role as a world leader on environmental matters.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I thank members across the chamber who signed the motion and enabled the debate to go ahead. I am also grateful to all the organisations that provided briefing materials and shared their views on the topic of a right to a healthy environment. In particular, I acknowledge the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland, Scottish Environment LINK and Movement for Health.

The pandemic and measures that have been put in place to keep everyone safe have shone a light on existing inequalities and fragilities in some of our systems, and our citizens who are already in vulnerable situations—they are often those with the least resources—have undoubtedly been most at risk of harm. However, even prior to the pandemic in Scotland, people living in our communities with the greatest economic challenges disproportionately suffered from the impacts of polluting factories and proximity to contaminated, derelict land and landfill. Those least responsible for causing environmental damage—children, the elderly and those suffering from ill health—are, in turn, most negatively impacted by environmental health hazards. In that way, an unhealthy environment exacerbates existing health inequalities. Furthermore, the Covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated the inextricable links between human and ecosystem health.

Now, more than ever, our need for a healthy environment must be protected in law as a human right. After a momentous day for human rights yesterday, when the Scottish Parliament unanimously approved the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill, it is a pleasure to highlight that, if re-elected, a Scottish National Party Government will introduce a new Scottish human rights act that will include a right to a healthy environment for everyone. The proposed framework will demonstrate global human rights leadership and place Scotland at the forefront of human rights legislation and, most importantly, practice.

The unequal impacts of the pandemic have brought important aspects of environmental issues to our attention, from global biodiversity loss to the importance of local access to good-quality green space. I want to concentrate my remarks on the importance of local access to quality green space and the relationship between the environment and our health. In doing so, I want to talk specifically about walking and wheeling.

I acknowledge the blog of the chief officer of Paths for All, Ian Findlay, which I read this morning. Sadly, Ian passed away on 5 March. I know that he was very highly regarded, and I note that Paths for All intends to honour his legacy by working to make Scotland a happier and healthier place. I think that we can all get behind that.

As Ian said in his blog, human health

“has 3 dimensions, physical, mental and social health.”

We know that being physically active has a huge positive impact on all three, particularly when we manage to get outdoors. We also know that being physically active has an immediate and positive impact on our resilience by enhancing our immune system.

People who exercise regularly have a lower risk of developing many long-term conditions, such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke and some cancers. Research shows that physical activity outdoors can also boost self-esteem, mood, sleep quality and energy, as well as reduce symptoms of stress, depression and dementia.

As much as 40 per cent of long-term conditions can be caused by inactivity. Physical activity improves physical function and cognition. It may improve quality of life in adults with schizophrenia and physical function in adults with intellectual disability, and it improves quality of life in adults with major clinical depression.

Access to the natural environment has an important role to play in health. Accessible parks, paths and green space, walking, wheeling and outdoor play, which is important for our children and young people, are available to all at low or no cost to citizens, and deliver huge benefits to society. Investment in protecting and sustaining our natural environment and ensuring that it is accessible to all could save our healthcare system money and, more important, could save lives. Ensuring that everyone can access their local parks, paths and countryside is critical from the perspectives of both healthcare and equity.

The right to a healthy environment is a large and important topic, so it has been possible for me to touch on only one aspect in the time that I have. Of course, recognising such a right is only one part of the Scottish Government’s bold and ambitious plans for a human rights act.

It is clear that taking a human rights-based approach to policies and decisions on embedding and progressing a human rights culture, in which such rights are placed at the heart of our society, will improve the lives of the people of Scotland. That cannot be done by the Government alone. I know that such ambitious plans will require us all—rights holders, local authorities, health boards, courts, the judiciary, scrutiny bodies, the third sector and the Scottish Parliament—to come together. I hope that that can happen as soon as possible following the election.

I again thank colleagues for their support for the debate. I look forward to hearing their contributions.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I congratulate my colleague Ruth Maguire on bringing this important debate to the chamber.

Like many other members, I have closely followed the work of the First Minister’s advisory group on human rights leadership, and I welcomed its recommendations made in 2018. Equally, I am sure that the Scottish Government’s national task force for human rights leadership will provide many valuable insights when it presents its recommendations on the furthering of human rights in the context of Scotland’s current devolution settlement.

Our view that everyone has a set of inalienable rights and freedoms is relatively modern. If we look to history we can see that advances in such protections often came in times of turbulence, when social and political rights that had previously been taken for granted were jeopardised. That is true from early discourses on the American and French revolutions to the post-war development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the impact of the civil rights movement.

The establishment of internationally recognised human rights is, without doubt, one of the defining achievements of the 20th century. However, they reflect our lack of recognition, at a global level, of the scale of the risk posed by environmental damage. United Nations member states have never formally recognised the human right to a healthy environment in a global instrument.

That is not to say that there has been no progress. The Stockholm declaration that followed the 1972 UN conference provided a non-binding set of principles and recommendations for environmental policy. As a result, more than 100 countries now have a constitutional right to a healthy environment. The United Kingdom participated in Stockholm but, almost 50 years later, still does not recognise such a right in law. If human rights are born from a recognition of jeopardy to our fundamental needs, given the climate crisis we have surely reached the point where we can no longer deny the existence of such jeopardy. Climate breakdown has already led to increased coastal erosion and landslides, biodiversity is under severe threat, and in parts of Scotland air pollution is at levels that are damaging to human health.

Without a healthy environment we cannot thrive. As we look ahead to a new parliamentary session, it is vital that we show our commitment to protecting the environment through the recognition of an inalienable right. Defining the human right to a healthy environment in law is both necessary and an incredible opportunity. Under the Scottish National Party Government’s leadership, Scotland has worked hard to cultivate a reputation as a world leader on environmental matters. I believe that proposals for a human rights bill should be considered by the Scottish Parliament early in the next session. Crucially, such a bill must contain details of the right to a healthy environment.

With the 26th UN climate change conference of the parties—COP26—taking place early in the next parliamentary session, all eyes will be on Glasgow and Scotland. Recognising the human right to a healthy environment at national level would cement Scotland’s desire to engage with climate policy on the global stage and enable us to push for decisive international action.

Tackling the climate crisis must involve worldwide effort, and Scotland’s contribution is important. However, the benefits of a well-defined right to a healthy environment would be felt at all levels. We are witnessing a cultural change, with growing demand from citizens and grass-roots organisations for environmental sustainability—for people to be able to walk in clean streets and parks and on clean beaches. Through the success of the Lamlash Bay no-take zone in my constituency, I have seen the hugely positive impact that progressive environmental policy can have. National acknowledgement of the right to a healthy environment would enable policy and decision makers across Scotland properly to consider the impacts of our actions on our environment.

If we are to survive the climate crisis, we must act now, and we must all act. This is a huge and daunting task with no easy answers. However, a commitment to recognising the right to a healthy environment fundamentally paves the way for real change. I look forward to reading the recommendations of the Scottish Government’s task force, and hope to be back in the chamber in the next parliamentary session debating how best to incorporate the right to a healthy environment into our human rights legislation.

Once again, I thank my colleague Ruth Maguire for bringing the debate to the chamber.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

The pandemic has shown us the value of a healthy environment for our physical and mental wellbeing. Conversely, we recognise more than ever the impact that environmental damage can have on us. I therefore welcome Ruth Maguire’s motion and thank her for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. I also congratulate her on securing the debate.

A healthy environment is especially important for the most vulnerable people in Scotland, those who are living in areas of high deprivation, children, the elderly and—more evidently than ever during the pandemic—those who have poor health. The irony is that, although they often contribute the least to environmental damage, they suffer the most from it.

Environmental damage such as dangerously high levels of air pollution can exacerbate existing health conditions. In 2019, six of Scotland’s streets were above the legal limit. In fact, 2020 was the first year in which Scotland did not record illegal levels of air pollution, but that was thanks to a nationwide lockdown rather than any environmental work.

Rubbish piles up as councils struggle to maintain clean streets with ever-smaller budgets. As the binmen are forced out, rats and other vermin move in, often in the poorest areas. We see green spaces being bulldozed, farmers being denied the support that they need to care for our countryside and Scotland’s biodiversity being threatened. All of that is putting our natural heritage at risk at a time when the pandemic has shown us how important it is for our physical and mental wellbeing.

If we are all agreed on the need for a healthy and resilient environment for all, we need to stop talking about it and make it happen. I have made many proposals during the past year. I have suggested having air quality monitors at every school, as well as setting a biodiversity baseline, establishing nectar networks, holding a mass urban tree-planting effort, providing fair funding for councils and giving communities the ability to say no to losing their green spaces.

That last point leads me to an important aspect of any right to a healthy environment, which is that individuals must be empowered to defend it. Despite the SNP Government’s assertions, Scotland has been criticised for not properly implementing the Aarhus convention, which protects people’s right to access and enjoy the environment. Specifically, Scotland has breached the category on access to justice because of the often prohibitively high cost of bringing legal action. For example, the John Muir Trust was forced to abandon an appeal relating to a wind farm when the legal bill climbed to £500,000.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Why did the member vote against equal rights of appeal?

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

Would the member care to repeat that? I did not hear what he said.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Why did the member vote against equal rights of appeal in the planning process if he is so concerned about the rights of communities?

Maurice Golden (Conservative, West Scotland)

The planning process needs further reform, and I hope that we can take care of that during the next parliamentary session. I am sure that the member will be lobbying me in that regard, and I would be quite happy to look at any improvements that would protect our natural environment.

This is an important point, because there is little point in declaring that people have the right to a healthy environment if it cannot be enforced. Fortunately, now that we have left the European Union, we have the opportunity to address that through the establishment of a new environmental court that will specifically handle environmental cases, widen access to justice and speed up proceedings.

With COP26 in Glasgow and the pandemic giving us the chance to build back better, it is absolutely right that Scotland has these conversations. We have a duty to protect the environment so that we each have the right to benefit from it.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

First, I add my name to those congratulating Ruth Maguire on securing this important debate, especially as Parliament is running out of time. The speeches that we have heard so far have been a really good contribution to the debate.

In her opening remarks, Ruth Maguire paid tribute to Ian Findlay. He was a fantastic leader of Paths for All, he made a huge contribution to public life in Scotland and he will be sadly missed.

In stating that

“Our house is on fire”,

Greta Thunberg established the link between the climate emergency and every one of us as citizens. There are people who live in an environment in which, day by day, the quality slips further from what many would define as healthy. That makes the debate really important. I agree with the key principles in Ruth Maguire’s motion and wish that we had more time to flesh out the topic in Parliament.

It is good to see international co-operation on the issue and that the UN has created a framework that we can move forward with. I hope that, in the early days and weeks of the next session of Parliament, we will see legislation come forward so that we can have an urgent debate and the next Government can set out the framework whereby we will see those environmental rights implemented.

The other thing that we will need is funding for proactive policy initiatives to make that framework a reality. We do not want to wait until legal cases are brought. World-leading legislation will mean very little to people who are living in poor conditions and needing to engage in legal battles if they do not have access to legal aid. Therefore, we need the legislation, the policy implementation and the funding to ensure that people have recourse to legal support.

It is great that the motion specifically references

“the need to care for global biodiversity and the importance of access to good quality and local greenspace”.

As colleagues have said, the pandemic has shown how important it is for people to have regular access to high-quality and attractive green spaces near their homes.

A key issue that we need to see action on is air quality. As we build our recovery from the pandemic, enabling people to have clean air must be a priority. I note the points that Maurice Golden made about the reduction in the amount of traffic during the pandemic, which has improved our air, but we need to focus on the fact that recovery from the pandemic might see people less keen to use public transport and more tied to their cars. Therefore, we will need to see action on public transport as well.

Enabling people to recover their health and wellbeing must be a real priority in the next session of Parliament. The World Health Organization states:

“Air pollution is a major environmental risk to health. By reducing air pollution levels, countries can reduce the burden of disease from stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and both chronic and acute respiratory diseases, including asthma.

The lower the levels of air pollution, the better the cardiovascular and respiratory health of the population will be, both long- and short-term.”

At the moment, too many people live in areas where the streets are polluted by traffic. I hope that the minister will address that issue specifically in his summing up.

I want to see immediate action on the aspects of the environment that impact on other rights, which I hope will be included in the human rights bill that is mentioned in the motion. That means taking a joined-up approach to improving housing environments, so that we retrofit and make older homes as energy efficient as possible using heating systems that are good for people’s air quality; build new housing to the highest energy performance standards; and link homes to heat networks to end fuel poverty and ensure that we have good-quality air around people’s homes.

We need to look at food, too, and shape our food industry so that it benefits our environment and ensures that not a single person in Scotland goes hungry.

The UN framework talks about action. Our framework must take a human-rights-based and people-centred approach and not be just a legal framework. The job of our next Parliament will be to act swiftly to reduce inequalities and ensure that access to a healthy environment is a right for every citizen in our country.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I, too, thank Ruth Maguire for bringing the motion to the chamber for debate. As the last environment debate, it is a really fitting end to the session. Establishing a right to a healthy environment could create an incredible legacy for future generations.

I, too, associate myself with Ruth Maguire’s comments about Ian Findlay. He made an incredible contribution to communities across Scotland, and his legacy will not be forgotten.

Human rights are born out of struggles against slavery, colonialism, sectarianism and patriarchy. Often, when our societies are in crisis and our rights are under threat, that provides the impetus to enshrine those rights in law. We are under threat as we have never been before in human history. The global picture is grim—we are currently on track for 3°C of global warming by the end of the century. The mass extinctions and the uninhabitable regions of the planet that will result are unthinkable. There has never been a more important time to enshrine in law a right to a healthy environment. My only concern is whether it is coming too late, but we have to act now and do what we can.

Throughout my time in politics, I have been privileged to work with communities that have come together to fight environmental injustices. In this session of Parliament, I have been privileged to work with communities that are living in the shadow of Mossmorran. They are struggling to get a good night’s sleep and even to exist because of the noise pollution that comes from the plant. I am proud to have worked with communities that are trying to protect their green spaces and to protect the marine environment, whether from the dredging of kelp forests or from the clear threat of ship-to-ship oil transfers in our seas.

Throughout that time, I have noted the effort and sacrifice that communities have to make for years—often for decades—to fight those injustices. Often, those communities need to become experts in planning and environmental law to make their case, and they have to crowdfund for judicial reviews and public inquiries. Therefore, it is welcome that the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland has been established. It underlines the fact that, alongside a substantive right to a healthy environment, we will also need procedural rights. Citizens need democratic tools with which to protect their environment. The Aarhus convention should give us those tools, access to information and access to decision making, as well as access to justice. The cost of securing legal representation is a great burden for many communities, which is why, in the next session of Parliament, my party will be pushing further the case for environmental courts.

The global crisis also affects individuals. I will conclude by talking about one individual, in particular. Ella Kissi-Debrah lived in Lewisham. By all accounts, according to those who loved her, she was a funny, busy, clever, curious, sporty and musical child. She was a very healthy child until the age of seven, when she contracted a rare and life-threatening form of asthma. Ella died in 2013 at the age of nine. The inquest into her death was held only last year, and its damning conclusion was that the pollution in Lewisham had been illegal for years but successive Governments had failed to provide vulnerable people such as Ella and her family with the information that they needed, and they had failed to take action to lower the pollution levels.

Ella’s was the first legal case to find that pollution levels had directly caused a death. However, there are tens of thousands of other people across the country who die far too young due to air pollution and hundreds of thousands more who have poor health as a result of air pollution. Often, in black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, people are living in poverty and next to congested roads. For the memory of Ella and for the sake of millions of people across the world, they deserve the right to a healthy environment, they deserve justice, and they need to see them in the next session of the Scottish Parliament.

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

I record my thanks to Ruth Maguire

for securing this important debate. I am sorry that I am not in Parliament in person today, but it has been excellent to listen to all the contributions, including the important and constructive points that have been made by colleagues on the various themes in the motion.

The Scottish Government welcomes the publication of the national task force report and all 30 recommendations that are contained in it. On my own behalf, and on behalf of colleagues, I say that we will carefully consider the findings of the report.

Our ambition is that a future Scottish Parliament will agree to a new world-leading human rights act in the coming session, thereby putting Scotland firmly at the forefront of global human rights leadership. We are hopeful that all parties will work to deliver that ambition in the next session.

Colleagues have, understandably, made points about the Aarhus convention. The Scottish Government has committed to working with stakeholders and to introducing a bill on legal aid reform, which will include consideration of court fees for Aarhus cases. That will form part of the procedural aspect of the human right to a healthy environment. Members have made important points in that regard.

Our collective response to the task force’s recommendations will build on our existing work to protect our environment. Last year, the Scottish Government launched our 2045 environment strategy vision, which describes our long-term ambitions for restoring Scotland’s natural environment and playing our full role in tackling the global climate and nature crises—the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.

The vision highlights that adapting to live within the planet’s sustainable limits will require transformative changes across our economy and society. In implementing those changes, we can transform our country for the better and ensure that everyone benefits from the rich natural resources that we have here in Scotland. We can build a stronger and more resilient economy in building on our green recovery from Covid.

We can tackle the inequalities that colleagues have mentioned, and we can improve the health and wellbeing of Scotland’s people. As we do so, we can meet our moral obligations to tackle climate change and to act as good global citizens.

The task force’s report marks an important step in our journey towards implementing a strengthened and ambitious framework for human rights in Scotland, including the pioneering recognition of the human right to a healthy environment. By including that right, we seek to ensure that everyone benefits from the healthy ecosystems that sustain human health, wellbeing and children’s development, as well as to ensure that they can access information, participate in decision making and access justice. Environmental rights are an important element of human rights, and they deserve to be recognised clearly in our strategies and delivery.

Scotland’s natural environment is our life-support system and provides the essentials that we need to survive and thrive—from the air that we breathe, the food that we eat and the water that we drink to the materials that we use to build our houses and make our clothes. Our environment supports our health and wellbeing in countless ways by providing free spaces for exercise, play and inspiration. It also underpins our economy by supporting the productivity of many sectors and thousands of jobs.

However, recent global assessments have clearly shown that our natural world is in crisis, with the health of the planet’s ecosystems declining faster than it has at any point in human history. We therefore need to work collectively to restore the resilience and richness of nature in Scotland—for its own sake as a good in itself, but also because it is fundamental to our health, wellbeing and prosperity. We need to ensure that everyone can enjoy the life-supporting benefits that our environment provides.

Our commitment in the Scottish Government to high environmental standards and to increasing wellbeing and equality in Scotland is world leading. We have the toughest and most ambitious legislative framework on climate change in the world; we are all obliged to make the changes that we have set out in law happen.

The right to a healthy environment is already implicit in our environment strategy. As we work to deliver our ambition for a healthy environment that

“supports a fairer, healthier, more inclusive society”,

we will explore opportunities to ensure that everyone in Scotland can access the essential benefits of a healthy environment and all that it provides.

From tackling health inequalities in relation to air quality, to accessing green space, to promoting active travel, connection with nature and outdoor play and education, the human right to a healthy environment will be central to the Scottish Government’s approach.

The introduction of a new environmental governance regime under the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 will help us to maintain our high environmental standards, in line with the European Union, following the UK’s recent—and unfortunate, in the view of many, including the Scottish Government—departure from Europe. As colleagues will know, the continuity act commits Scottish ministers to reviewing the efficacy of the new governance arrangements, including consideration of whether the law on access to justice in environmental matters is effective and sufficient.

As several colleagues, including Kenneth Gibson, mentioned, there is an international dimension to all this. Although we in Scotland have done much to implement the international standards that are included in the report, including the framework principles on human rights and the environment and the Aarhus convention, there is more that can, and must, be done. Development and implementation of the framework will be complex, and we will require to consider carefully some aspects in particular if we are to do it justice.

It is vital that we are not complacent, and that we continue to push ourselves. We have heard from members today about our collective commitment to do more to ensure that human rights are embedded in everything that we do. In responding to that challenge, we must live up to the call from the task force report to improve the everyday experience and lives of individuals and communities, and to improve wellbeing across communities in Scotland.

We look forward to working with stakeholders, and with the next equalities committee, to ensure that we can deliver on our ambitious goals in a way that is best for the people of Scotland.

Today’s debate has been important and useful, and we will undoubtedly need to continue the discussion—as we should—in the next session of Parliament, with the involvement of those who will be elected in a number of weeks.

I thank all members who have contributed to the debate. In particular, I thank the Equalities and Human Rights Committee and Ruth Maguire for bringing the debate to the chamber. I, along with my fellow ministers who have responsibility for the various aspects that the motion covers, look forward to continuing to work together to bring about the change that we collectively seek.

13:32 Meeting suspended.

14:00 On resuming—

Justice and the Law Officers

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Good afternoon. I remind members to follow the social distancing procedures that are in place across the Holyrood campus, particularly when entering and exiting the chamber and accessing and leaving their seats.

Our next item of business is portfolio questions. In order to get as many people in as possible, I ask for short and succinct questions and answers. I remind members to type R in the chat box or to press their request-to-speak button if they wish to ask a supplementary on a particular question. The first questions are on justice and the law officers.

Domestic Abuse (Court Delays)

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service regarding any court delays in cases relating to domestic abuse. (S5O-05114)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Before I answer on the substance of the question, I pay tribute to Linda Fabiani’s interest in raising issues of domestic abuse, both in relation to the relatively new domestic abuse offence that was passed by the Parliament in 2018 and on a range of other relevant issues such as non-harassment orders. She has been a champion for the rights of victims and survivors of domestic abuse and I am sure that, even after she departs this Parliament, she will continue to champion those worthy causes.

The Scottish Government is in regular dialogue with its justice partners, including the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, about the impact of Covid-19 restrictions on court proceedings, including cases that relate to domestic abuse. We understand the impact that delays have on victims and witnesses, and on the accused. That is a key driver behind our commitment to invest £50 million in our recover, renew, transform programme to increase capacity, drive further reform and, ultimately, tackle the backlog that has built up. A few weeks ago, I hosted a constructive round-table event to discuss proposals from the criminal justice board on increasing that capacity, and I will continue to take forward similar discussions with a wide range of stakeholders across the justice system—including, of course, those third sector organisations that represent victims and survivors of domestic abuse.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that detailed answer. I know that he recognises the added stress that delayed court cases cause to victims of alleged domestic abuse, in the form of uncertainty, family worries and, in too many cases, fear. Of course, such delays happened pre-pandemic, but the situation has got worse, for understandable reasons. When he meets the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and other partners, will the cabinet secretary always stress the absolute importance of quick and speedy resolution of such cases? That is so important to victims and their families.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Linda Fabiani is right to raise those concerns. I am in regular discussions with the Lord Advocate, the Crown Office and other justice partners about the issue. The Lord Advocate can, of course, speak for himself, but in any discussion that I have had with him, he has completely and absolutely understood the trauma that survivors and victims of domestic abuse face and suffer. That is why, despite the restrictions on court proceedings, domestic abuse cases will be prioritised—Linda Fabiani might have noted that. I will certainly continue to work with our partners to make sure that we do everything in our power to lessen the trauma that domestic abuse survivors face when it comes to reporting their case to the police and, ultimately, coming to a trial at court. I absolutely commit to Linda Fabiani that we will do that.

Covid-19 (Routine Testing of Police Officers)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the justice secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding offering routine Covid-19 testing to police officers. (S5O-05115)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I have very regular discussions with my ministerial colleagues on the Government’s response to the pandemic, and I have been liaising closely with Police Scotland and other police and justice partners on Covid-19 issues, including on the testing of police officers. Testing for police officers and staff began on 6 April 2020 and will continue for as long as is necessary. Any police officer or member of staff who is concerned after having a Covid-19 interaction can access a test, even if they are asymptomatic.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The cabinet secretary will know that police work is such that social distancing is often not possible. Police officers must enter homes or visit hospitals and get close to people, all of which can put them at far greater risk of contracting and spreading the virus.

Will the cabinet secretary explain what consideration has been given to prioritising police officers to receive the vaccine and whether local health boards should be encouraged to offer excess vaccine, which would otherwise be wasted, to front-line police officers?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I have had positive engagement with Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Federation, both of which have raised the issue with me. The chief constable has also raised it in conversations with other ministers.

For good reasons, we are following the guidance issued by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Everyone accepts that the age-based roll-out of vaccinations has worked well and gets the vaccine to as many people as possible as quickly as possible.

The member’s second point is an important one. We have been liaising with our partners in public health and local health boards to ensure that end-of-day or excess vaccines can be offered to the police. That has so far been successful. The latest figures show that more than 1,000 police officers have benefited from excess vaccines. Those discussions with local health boards will continue.

Domestic Homicide Reviews

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made with its commitment in the 2017 equally safe delivery plan to develop multi-agency domestic homicide reviews. (S5O-05117)

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

It remains a Scottish Government priority to prevent and eradicate violence against women and girls. That is why we have committed to develop multi-agency domestic homicide reviews to improve our multi-agency response and our understanding of how we can prevent such deaths from occurring in the first place.

Although that commitment was initially put on hold due to the pandemic, officials are now in the process of convening a steering group, including Police Scotland and key partners, in order to drive forward that critical work.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Although the minister has highlighted recent progress, the lack of overall progress is disappointing. The delivery of the equally safe plan was a priority in 2017-18, but we have seen very little action on the issue.

A joint letter sent by the Victims Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales to the United Kingdom Government last week pointed to a culture of misogyny in the criminal justice system, including in the response to domestic homicide. The commissioners called for an independent review of every domestic homicide.

Will the Scottish Government commit to introducing a review of every domestic homicide in Scotland and will it address the deficiencies in the justice system regarding outcomes for crimes that disproportionately impact on women?

Ash Denham (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The member raises an important issue. I will discuss it with the cabinet secretary and come back to the member with more detail.

Members will understand why work was paused during the pandemic. It has recommenced, and we will soon convene a short-life steering group that will drive the work forward. The safety and wellbeing of women and children who experience domestic abuse is a priority for the Scottish Government. It is important that they are protected and that support services remain open so that people can access the help that they need to stay safe from harm.

Knife Crime (North Ayrshire)

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

5. To ask the Scottish Government how many knife crimes there were in North Ayrshire in the most recent year for which information is available, and how this compares with the peak year for such offences since 1999. (S5O-05118)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The police recorded 130 cases of offences of possessing an article with a blade or point in a public setting in North Ayrshire in 2019-20. Due to earlier changes in data collection, long-term comparisons can be done only for cases where the weapon was not used by the perpetrator. Such cases almost halved between the peak year of 2008-09 and 2019-20.

Other sources show the progress made in reducing the devastating impact of knife crime on communities in Ayrshire, with emergency hospital admissions due to assault with a sharp object down by two thirds across Ayrshire and Arran since 2009-10. Over a similar period, the proportion of people in Ayrshire who thought that knife carrying was common in their local area fell from 31 per cent to 7 per cent.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The fear of knife crime has plummeted under the Scottish National Party Government by more than 75 per cent, as the cabinet secretary said. Can he advise the Parliament of the measures that have been implemented by the Scottish Government, Police Scotland and others that have delivered that success?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The member is right that it has plummeted, and much of that is down to the public health approach to tackling violence that has been taken by not just the Government but the Parliament, which I think endorses that approach. We have invested £21 million in violence reduction programmes across the country since 2008. That includes the Scottish violence reduction unit, which I referred to, as well as investments in the no knives, better lives programme, Medics Against Violence and the mentors in violence prevention programme. Any member of Parliament who has seen those projects at first hand will know what great value they are in helping us to reduce the abhorrent effects of knife crime that have blighted too many communities across Scotland.

Over the past decade, our no knives, better lives programme has reached more than 100,000 young people in schools in every local authority area to highlight the issues and consequences of knife carrying. The programme encourages young people to make positive changes in their lives. We will continue to take that public health approach and to fund interventions for young people in particular, which will benefit the member’s constituency as well as other constituencies across Scotland.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In the year when the cabinet secretary was appointed to his role, 111 crimes relating to offensive or bladed weapons were recorded in Aberdeen. This year’s statistics for the equivalent period show 303 knife crimes, which is a 173 per cent rise in just two years, yet only 38 per cent of criminals who are convicted of handling offensive weapons went to prison in 2018-19. How does the cabinet secretary defend a presumption against short prison sentences and writing off 35 per cent of community payback order work hours when it is clear that that approach is not deterring dangerous knife crime in places such as Aberdeen?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

The member has often tried to articulate the debate through the prism of soft versus hard justice. That does not work. His approach would of course result in more people in prison—I accept that—but fewer people would be rehabilitated. That would mean more people committing crimes and more victims of crime, including more victims of knife crime. We tend to follow the evidence that is in front of us. Our approach is not a hard or soft justice approach; it is a smart justice approach. Because we have followed that approach, violent crime has almost halved in a decade, as I said to Kenneth Gibson. That is the effect of the approach that we have taken.

I will let Liam Kerr continue to appeal to the gallery that he chooses to appeal to in terms of the right-wing press, his supporters and perhaps members of his party. However, we will not follow a soft or hard justice approach; we will follow the smart justice approach that has resulted in Scotland having one of the lowest levels of crime in 40 years.

Miners’ Strike (Pardons)

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made on the pardoning of miners convicted of offences relating to the strike in 1984-85. (S5O-05119)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

In October last year, I announced that the Scottish Government had accepted in principle the recommendation that was made by an independent review panel that, subject to suitable criteria being established, legislation should be introduced to pardon miners who were convicted for matters relating to the 1984-85 strike. I also committed to giving careful consideration to what the qualifying criteria should be for the pardon, and to consult widely on that.

I am pleased to confirm that I launched a public consultation on 12 March, which will run until 4 June. Responses to the consultation will help to shape the qualifying criteria and the future legislation that will give effect to the pardon.

I also confirm that, last week, I wrote to the Home Secretary to make her aware of the consultation and to once again urge her to commit to holding a full United Kingdom public inquiry into the policing of the strike.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Events have overtaken my question, but it is good news that the consultation has started. How will the cabinet secretary ensure that the consultation goes out to the people who are most impacted? Can he confirm that the timeline that the civil service is working to will allow the legislation to proceed in the new session of Parliament, irrespective of who makes up the Government?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I recognise—I suspect that the whole Parliament recognises—Neil Findlay’s efforts in championing the cause on behalf of miners up and down Scotland. I know that the issue is personal to him, as he has a family history of and tradition in mining. It would be churlish not to recognise that, as it would be not to recognise that his efforts have been instrumental in getting us to this point.

On the substance of the question, I have met Nicky Wilson of the National Union of Mineworkers, with whom I know that Neil Findlay is very familiar. My officials met the NUM again at half past 10 this morning and discussed the very issue that Mr Findlay raises.

Obviously, we are still in the middle of a pandemic and restrictions still apply, so we are working closely with the NUM to make sure that we can reach out to as many miners and affected miners as possible. So far, the consultation, which was launched only a number of days ago, has received more than 150 responses. That is positive.

On the second part of Neil Findlay’s question, we launched the consultation pre-election so that whatever Government comes in post-election will have the responses available, which will mean that it will be able to do the analysis quickly and, I hope, introduce a bill to give effect to a pardon to the miners who deserve it as quickly as possible.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I, too, welcome the launch of the consultation, and pay tribute to all who have campaigned so hard to get to this point. I, of course, include Neil Findlay in that regard.

To pick up on Neil Findlay’s question, what specific steps will be taken to raise awareness of the consultation in former mining communities in my Cowdenbeath constituency? It occurs to me that one possible vehicle would be to write to the secretaries of the relevant community councils.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

That is an excellent suggestion, which I will take away and mention to my colleagues and my officials. I pay tribute to the fact that Annabelle Ewing has also championed this cause. Every time I have made a statement or answered a question, she has always stood up for the mining communities in her Cowdenbeath constituency and beyond.

I will take note of Annabelle Ewing’s suggestion and pass it on to my officials. I am sure that it is one that we can take up.

Covid-19 (Reintroduction of Local Restriction Levels)

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

7. I, too, appreciate that my question may have been overtaken by the First Minister’s remarks yesterday.

To ask the Scottish Government what preparations Police Scotland is making for the reintroduction of Covid-19 local restriction levels. (S5O-05120)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I engage with Police Scotland regularly around Covid-19 regulations. Operational policing decisions are, of course, a matter for the chief constable. However, Police Scotland has advised me that officers will continue to work alongside its national and regional partners to support people through the move out of the current stay-at-home period and back into the restriction levels.

Police Scotland has advised that contingency plans are in place for national and local policing divisions to ensure resource and response capability during the transition, and that it will consider a number of pertinent themes, including the reopening of hospitality, retail, the night-time economy and so on and so forth.

Officers will continue to respond to breaches of legislation, including large indoor and outdoor gatherings, taking enforcement action where it is proportionate and necessary to do so in order to support the national health emergency and protect the citizens of Scotland.

A range of important stakeholders will be involved in the monitoring of compliance with regard to the reintroduction of the restriction levels across Scotland. As Dr Allan alluded to, the First Minister mentioned in her statement yesterday that the Government will enter into discussion with island communities on that very issue.

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

As the cabinet secretary alluded to, particular questions are still being discussed around the level of restrictions that might apply to travel to and from islands. Can he say more about what the police will do once there is greater clarity on the level of restrictions?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

As they have done previously, the police will work, where necessary, with local authorities and with the transport providers—in the case of Dr Allan’s constituency, that means the ferry operators and the aviation sector.

I am sure that, at a local level, the police will engage with Dr Allan on his constituency because, where necessary, they will take enforcement action where there are particularly egregious breaches of the travel restrictions.

However, we must remember that, although the police have a role to play, so do local authorities and transport providers. It is incumbent on all partners to be collectively engaged in the discussions that the First Minister alluded to in her statement yesterday.

Covid-19 (Reoffending and Youth Justice in Dundee)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what additional support it has provided to support efforts to reduce reoffending in Dundee and ensure continuity in delivering a fair and balanced approach to youth justice, in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. (S5O-05121)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

We have had considerable success when it comes to young people in our criminal justice system. That includes, for example,

a fall of 75 per cent in the number of 12 to 17-year-olds proceeded against in Scotland’s courts.

Throughout the pandemic, Government officials have maintained contact with Dundee City Council through the Dundee city vulnerable adolescent partnership, and quarterly national youth justice advisory group and whole-system approach local leads meetings. Those meetings address specific issues and support the sharing of good practice.

I understand that support for children and young people in Dundee has continued during the pandemic. I appreciate the efforts and put on record my thanks to all those in Dundee and others across Scotland who have worked with children and young people to maintain a consistent level of service during the past year.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the work of the Tayside arrest referral service, which is provided by Action for Children and which offers a tailored, holistic approach to support young people at risk, and initiatives such as The Circle, which brings together organisations across the spectrum at its hub. Does the cabinet secretary agree that those community-based support models offer great potential? What further support is the Scottish Government providing to them and to others in Dundee to continue to build on that potential?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I recognise the excellent work that is being done by the Tayside arrest referral service and The Circle.

I agree that services must attend to the needs as well as the actions of young people in trouble. We promote desistance by giving positive alternatives to young people and minimising the number of future victims.

Scottish Government officials are in contact with Dundee City Council to discuss the services that are provided across the city for young people at risk and whether any additional support is required.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Like other cities, including Dundee, Edinburgh has problems with antisocial behaviour. Today, Lothian Buses has announced that buses in Edinburgh will come off service at 7.30 in the evening because of attacks on buses and bus drivers. That is an urgent situation for people in Edinburgh. What intervention can the cabinet secretary make to try to address that situation?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Neil Findlay is absolutely right: that could have quite an impact on public health workers and many other people who need that public transport. I will ensure that I speak to Police Scotland—I am due to speak to it imminently—and that my officials take up the issue with local policing divisions. Ultimately, of course, issues to do with tackling antisocial behaviour are operational matters for Police Scotland. I am certain that it will be working with local transport providers.

Let us make it very clear that, regardless of my intervention or Police Scotland’s intervention, all of us agree that any type of attack—whether that be an assault or a verbal or spitting attack—on our transport providers, particularly during the pandemic, is to be condemned.

Constitution, Europe and External Affairs

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind members to press their request-to-speak button if they wish to ask a supplementary question.

Michael Russell will be making his final substantive contribution in the chamber. I will invite him to make some valedictory remarks after he has answered the final question.

Independence Referendum (Publication of Draft Bill)

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

1. I wish Michael Russell well in his retirement. I am sure that he will still be very actively involved in the political scene in Scotland. We recognise the contributions to the Parliament that he has made over a number of years.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when it will publish the draft bill for an independence referendum announced in its programme for government for 2020-21. (S5O-05122)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Mr Balfour for his kind words.

The Scottish Government will publish the draft independence referendum bill as announced in the programme for government before the pre-election recess begins.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Does the cabinet secretary not accept that it is completely irresponsible timing to bring forward that bill when the priority needs to be recovering from the Covid-19 pandemic and putting all our energy into getting businesses back on their feet, supporting people into work and investing in our schools to help children to catch up, with so much lost teaching time?

What is the cabinet secretary’s number 1 priority: Scotland’s recovery from the tragic effects of the pandemic, or his party’s obsession with indyref 2?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

My

urgent priority—as it should be for all of us in the chamber—is to ensure that Scotland recovers from the pandemic. That has to be done according to what the Scottish people choose rather than what Boris Johnson chooses—that is the big difference. If we look at what will take place, I would rather move forward from the pandemic and rebuild Scotland in a way that is commensurate with the people of Scotland’s urgent necessities rather than Boris Johnson’s obsessions.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We have two supplementaries to that question.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Ian Blackford has said that another independence referendum could take place this year. He cited the cabinet secretary’s comment that there should be six months between the legislation and the referendum. Does the cabinet secretary agree with Mr Blackford that there could—or should—be a referendum this year? If the urgent priority is to focus on the national recovery from Covid, surely that should be the focus of the next session of Parliament.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome Mr Smyth to his new role as his party’s spokesperson on the constitution. However, this is “Hail and farewell”, as far as I can see, because I do not think that I will have an opportunity to take questions from him again.

Unfortunately, I start by disagreeing with Mr Smyth. He will have heard what I said in response to Mr Balfour. The urgent necessity is for Scotland to build forward from the pandemic in a way that will give it a sustainable future. That cannot be done by a United Kingdom Government, and I am disappointed that the Scottish Labour Party still believes that it can.

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

I, too, add my thanks and wish the best of luck to Mike Russell, who has been a great support to me over the past five years and before that. I am sure that I will see him before we both go.

The report of the Smith commission included a clear commitment that

“nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose”.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that all parties in the chamber should honour the commitment that they signed up to, and that they should not stand in the way of people’s right to have a say over their future?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Gail Ross for her remarks. I wish her the best, too. We have been friends over a long period, and I am sure that we will continue to be so as we both go on to different things.

Gail Ross rightly quoted the report of the Smith commission, which said:

“nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose”.

I emphasise the words

“should the people of Scotland so choose”—

not the Prime Minister, the UK Government, Douglas Ross or the Scottish Conservatives, but the people of Scotland. That is why the Scottish Government is clear that if there should be majority support for an independence referendum in the next parliamentary term there could then be no moral or democratic justification whatsoever for any UK Government, or any of the aforementioned, to ignore the rights and will of the people of Scotland.

“Breaking Point” (Response)

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

2. I would like to pay my respects to Mike Russell and to wish him well. In particular, I recognise all the work that he has done on protecting our environment and shaping our response to the sad demands of Brexit.

I turn to my question. To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recent report by the Disasters Emergency Committee, “Breaking Point”, and how this will impact on its international development strategy. (S5O-05123)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The Scottish Government shares the concerns expressed in the Disasters Emergency Committee’s report about the impact of Covid-19 on the world’s most fragile states.

Through our humanitarian emergency fund, which is aligned to the DEC, we provide assistance to support the response to some of the worst humanitarian crises. I recently updated the Parliament on the results of our review of our approach to international development in light of Covid-19. We will keep the DEC report in mind as our approach to international development evolves

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

This year, Scotland will host

the 26th United Nations climate change conference of the parties—COP26—and the build-up to it. As a sub-state of COP26, Scotland must set an example for the rest of the world to follow in its approach to support for countries on the front line of climate impact. However, the climate justice fund has stayed at £3 million despite non-governmental organisations’ call for it to become £10 million this year. What discussion is planned, or has been had already, with Scottish Government colleagues on global justice ahead of COP26, given the parallels between the global challenges of Covid-19 and climate change for countries that are particularly challenged?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

With regard to COP26, Claudia Beamish said that Scotland needs to set an example to the world and I think that she is absolutely right. We are keen to work with our international development partners and do just that.

The climate justice fund sits in Roseanna Cunningham’s portfolio area and, in terms of the response to the requests that come from organisations at the moment, I imagine that the parties’ manifestos will address that key point in future.

My portfolio has made a number of contributions to international development. The Disasters Emergency Committee launched a fundraising appeal following a cyclone that left a trail of destruction back in 2019, meaning that more than 400,000 people lost their homes and vital infrastructure was destroyed by major flooding. A further £50,000 was allocated to support emergency flood relief in Malawi, in addition to the £175,000 that will be delivered through the University of Strathclyde hydro nation programme.

Claudia Beamish is absolutely right to raise the issue of climate justice and, as she says, it is important that we use COP26 to showcase Scotland’s key work in those areas. The UK Government also works with us on those matters.

European Union Exit (Impact on Opportunities for Young People)

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

3. As other members have done, I thank Mike Russell for his substantial contribution to the Parliament for many years, not least of which has been his commitment to Scotland’s constitutional future.

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union on the opportunities for young people from Scotland to live, work or study in the EU. (S5O-05124)

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Our analysis makes it clear that the UK’s exit from the EU is extremely damaging for Scotland. Our further and higher education students, schoolchildren and young people will be particularly affected by the UK Government’s decision not to participate in the Erasmus plus mobility programme, through which, between 2014 and 2018, 13,957 participants from across Scotland gained valuable international experience. The UK Government’s replacement Turing scheme is a watered-down imitation, which offers no support for our adult learning or youth work sectors.

The Scottish Government welcomes the announcement that the UK will associate to the horizon Europe programme. However, even with that association confirmed, the overall loss of freedom of movement within EU countries will act as a barrier to young researchers and students, and will result in additional expenses for young people who are looking to further their careers or expand their horizons abroad.

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

As the minister said, one of the EU’s benefits for young people was Erasmus plus. For instance, the scheme recently assisted 56 young people from Royston Youth Action in my constituency to visit Finland, Austria and Estonia for what were life-affirming experiences; I know that lifelong friendships were forged.

I am deeply concerned that the UK’s Brexit will make similar visits far less likely in the future. Despite these difficult post-Brexit circumstances, what opportunities now exist to benefit young people who live in areas such as Royston?

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

The replacement scheme for Erasmus plus falls considerably short of what we have lost. In fact, it offers no provision whatsoever for youth work or projects such as those that are undertaken by Royston Youth Action, nor does it offer support for adult education or staff mobility. That loss of opportunity for our most vulnerable communities is deeply concerning.

Throughout our discussions with the UK Government, the Scottish Government has been clear that support for our adult education and youth work sectors is vital. My colleague, the Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science, has been working with Welsh and Northern Irish ministers to challenge the UK Government but we have yet to receive a satisfactory response on how it will address that substantial gap.

The Scottish Government has always been clear that mobility is about more than just higher education students, and Erasmus plus was the best way to enable people from across Scotland to take part. The UK Government scheme leaves our most disadvantaged learners with no support. The Scottish Government is currently in communication with the European Commission to see how we might maximise Scottish participation in the elements of the programme that remain open to us.

European Union Withdrawal (Relationships with Non-EU Countries)

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

4. I enter into the spirit of the afternoon’s proceedings by also wishing the cabinet secretary—indeed, everyone—all the very best for the future.

To ask the Scottish Government what impact the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union has had on Scotland’s relationships with countries outwith the EU. (S5O-05125)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Mr Lindhurst, and I wish him well, too.

The UK’s decision to leave the EU has undoubtedly posed challenges to Scotland’s ability to engage closely with international partners, whether directly or through arrangements that have been agreed by the EU. Despite that, the Scottish Government stands firm in its outward-looking and values-based approach. We will continue to strengthen our international relationships within the EU and beyond, to work ever more collaboratively with others on the challenges that face our post-Covid world, to increase our international trade and investment activity and, ultimately, to achieve our overarching objective of sustainable and inclusive economic growth in Scotland.

Gordon Lindhurst (Conservative, Lothian)

We need to recognise the benefits that we have already seen—for example, the United States Government’s recent lifting of tariffs on many goods, which should result in millions of pounds from exports of cashmere and of cheese and other delicacies. Will the cabinet secretary commit the Scottish Government to working positively to benefit the whole of Scotland from the advantages that have already been seen?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Gordon Lindhurst should differentiate between the removal of trade tariffs that were imposed because of a trade dispute—thus, the reversion to the previous situation—and the question whether there are any benefits in becoming a third country outside the EU. The answer is that there are no such benefits; there are no such benefits for Scotland and, actually, there are no such benefits for the UK. Although I admire the member’s optimism, I do not agree in any sense with his accuracy.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Having known Mike Russell for many years, I also wish him well.

A close relationship between the UK and the EU is in everyone’s interests. Will the cabinet secretary join me in calling on the UK Government to take a more co-operative approach to its relationship with the EU in order to develop better outcomes for people in Scotland and across the UK?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Richard Lyle makes a very sensible point. I have written to Lord Frost about that matter just this weekend. I do not know whether the response will come before I finally leave Parliament, or come in anything other than the usual dismissive terms, but there is no doubt that the way in which the business is being conducted by him and by Boris Johnson is counterproductive and damaging.

United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

5. I also wish the cabinet secretary well and look forward to continuing to work with him as he helps us, as I am sure he will, to deliver independence.

To ask the Scottish Government to what extent it expects the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to impact on the powers of the Scottish Parliament. (S5O-05126)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Last week, we published a paper, “After Brexit: The UK Internal Market Act and Devolution”, which sets out how

the act will impact fundamentally on the power of the Scottish Parliament. It will constrain our ability to take decisions that reflect the needs of Scotland’s businesses and people.

The Scottish Parliament’s ability to ensure high food standards and to prevent, for example, sale of single-use plastics, could be rendered obsolete, which would undermine Scotland’s ability to shape its future. The UK Government also announced plans to use the 2020 act’s spending powers to deliver the levelling up fund, which is bypassing any Scottish Parliament involvement in about £400 million of expected consequential funding.

Since the Brexit vote, there has been a systematic attack on the Scottish Parliament’s powers and on devolution. That is why we will continue to resist the damaging effects of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 in every way possible.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Does the cabinet secretary share my concern that the UK Government and UK Parliament are now regularly legislating in devolved policy areas and adjusting the powers of the Scottish Parliament without its consent?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Indeed, I do. There was a further example of that yesterday afternoon, when there was a series of Trojan horse amendments that were, I believe, called “probing” amendments, but which were designed to do what Fulton MacGregor described. I pay strong tribute to my friend and colleague John Swinney, who saw them off with aplomb.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There is a supplementary question from Dean Lockhart.

Dean Lockhart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I also add my best wishes to the cabinet secretary for the next stage in his career, and I acknowledge his contributions to the Scottish Parliament and to public affairs in Scotland. I have shadowed Mike Russell for only six months, but it has been an eventful and interesting time.

I turn to my question about the UK internal market. As the cabinet secretary is aware, the UK internal market accounts for more than 60 per cent of Scotland’s trade, but Scotland has only one trade promotion office in the rest of the UK, compared to 32 trade offices in other markets across the world. Does the cabinet secretary agree that having more trade offices in other parts of the UK would help to increase Scotland’s trade with our single most important market?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That is an interesting proposal. If Dean Lockhart wishes to encourage the Scottish Government to open offices right across these islands, who am I to object? His usual approach to the issue—he has taken me a bit by surprise with that question—is to demand that we must recognise that that trade is so important that we would disrupt it by not being in the same political union. However, if that were true, the UK would not be leaving the EU, so I am glad that he has moved on from that tired and erroneous argument to a new argument.

I shall consider carefully in the very short time that I have in office whether we should open an office in every burgh in which that would be possible throughout these lands—[

Laughter

.]—because it is an interesting prospect.

Visa Requirements (Work and Student Internships)

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

6. I congratulate Mike Russell on his huge contribution to the Parliament over the years, and to the debate on Scotland’s constitutional future. He will be missed.

To ask the Scottish Government what recent representations it has made to the United Kingdom Government regarding visas for people wishing to work in Scotland, and whether it is able to clarify the visa requirements for student internships to ensure that these international exchanges can continue. (S5O-05127)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Scotland must be able to attract talented people from across the world to work and study here, and migration policy should support mobility, collaboration and innovation.

The UK Government did not seek an extensive mobility framework with the EU, which has created barriers to cross-border exchanges in both directions, and there is no clear visa route for young Europeans to undertake internships in the UK. We have urged the UK Government to enable mobility of European students to the UK, especially now that we are, sadly, no longer full participants in the Erasmus+ programme.

As we face the biggest economic crisis in decades, the UK Government must allow for the level and type of migration that the economy and our communities need in order to prosper.

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

What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that visa issues resulting from exit from the EU are resolved swiftly to ensure that native speakers who work in foreign language teaching in Scotland do not face further barriers to working here?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

We welcome the UK Government’s recent announcement that some regulated qualifications framework roles in levels 3 to 5, including secondary school modern foreign language teachers, will be added to the shortage occupation list from 6 April this year. Although that falls far short of the benefits of free movement, those skilled teachers will now be exempt from the minimum salary threshold of £25,600 when applying to work in the UK.

However, the UK Government’s decision to delay further the inclusion of all recommended RQF level 3 to 5 roles means that many workers who are vital to our economic recovery will have no route to enter the UK until the list is reviewed in 2022. Denying access to those uniquely skilled workers risks acute labour shortages across many sectors, and will compound the damaging effects of Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic across Scotland.

Settled Status Scheme (Deadline)

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

7. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to raise awareness ahead of the June 2021 deadline of the European Union settled status scheme. (S5O-05128)

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

More than 250,000 applications have been made to the EU settlement scheme by people in Scotland, but many more people have yet to apply. That is why we have we have provided more than £1 million of support through our stay in Scotland campaign.

To increase awareness of the deadline, the Scottish Government is running a campaign on radio, on digital services and on social media. I wrote to MSPs on that matter last week, and I encourage all members to share that information via their social media channels.

We are also supporting our partners to inform EU citizens about the need to apply before the deadline. Together with our partners, we fund a network of qualified advisors to help people to apply to the scheme. Anyone can call the EU citizens support service for advice and support on 0800 916 9847.

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

I know that the minister will agree with me that it is essential that we treat EU citizens with dignity and respect, and that we do all that we can in Scotland to educate people and encourage them to apply in time. However, what can be done to assist those who, through no fault of their own, miss the June deadline?

Jenny Gilruth (Scottish National Party, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I agree with Gail Ross: EU citizens who fail to apply to the scheme before the deadline will, at best, face the hostile environment and will, at worst, be subjected to enforced removal. The Windrush scandal demonstrated the United Kingdom Government’s callousness; we must do everything that we can to prevent the same thing from happening again to our European friends and family. That is why I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government will continue to fund our third sector partners after the EUSS deadline in order to assist our EU citizens in making late applications.

The Scottish Government has long argued that the UK Government should adopt a declaratory system, which would allow our EU citizens to retain their rights without the need to apply. We are concerned that some people might remain unaware of the scheme, or might think that it is not for them. The pandemic might have impacted on people’s ability to apply by the deadline in June. In the light of that, we are calling on the UK Government to extend the deadline.

Our message to EU citizens in Scotland is clear: Scotland values you, and you will always be welcome here.

Brexit (Support for Companies)

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

8. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the action it is taking to support companies that have been the most impacted by a loss of business due to Brexit. (S5O-05129)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The

Scottish Government is deeply concerned by emerging evidence that Brexit is having a severe impact on the ability of Scottish companies to trade effectively and competitively with the European Union, with lasting consequences. The Scottish Government will continue to work hard to address the problems and blockages that are being faced by companies where it is in our power to do so. We are working with our partner agencies, business organisations and others to assess the impact of Brexit and to help companies to adapt to new trading arrangements.

Richard Lyle (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

It has been reported that exports to the EU are down by 40 per cent. Does the cabinet secretary believe that United Kingdom politicians who misled voters and firms to support Brexit should now apologise for misleading them?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Michael Russell to answer his final question and make his final remarks.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I do indeed hope that they will apologise, but many of my hopes have come to nothing in recent years, so I am not holding my breath for that.

Presiding Officer, thank you for allowing me to spend just a few moments on what I think will be almost my final remarks in the chamber, after 18 years as an MSP. I say “almost”, because I may have to move a motion this evening.

First, I want to say sorry. I know that that will surprise people, but I noticed in a recent article that one member singled me out as the person they most disliked in the Parliament. Given that one of my many faults is that I find it hard to resist a good line, I know that I have rubbed some people up the wrong way, sometimes on several occasions and sometimes even my own colleagues, so I start by saying sorry to those whom I have upset or offended, on any side of the chamber. I suppose that retirement is a fresh start—and who could resist that? I just hope that I can now behave myself for the last few days in this place.

I stress, as much as possible, the importance of polite, courteous and constructive speech, here perhaps more than anywhere else. It is not easy for politicians, and the polarising effect of social media, the pressures of lockdown and the frustrations of Brexit, among other impositions, have made this place more fractious and less friendly than it once was. However, freedom of speech does not just mean being free to be nasty to each other; we should try to be as constructive, civilized and courteous as possible. That approach is what the people of Scotland thought they were getting back in 1999. We have not been able to live up to that as much as we might have done, but perhaps this institution can recapture that spirit, for itself and for the health of democracy, in the next session. It is a worthy ambition, but there are other ambitions that the Parliament should have, too.

Scotland has benefited greatly from the restoration of its Parliament after almost 300 years of recess. I have been grateful for the opportunity to play a role in securing that and in helping to nurture the infant institution. It has grown well, but it has further to grow.

It will be no surprise to anyone that I believe that this place must have the full powers of a full and normal independent Parliament before we can do our job for the people of Scotland to the full extent that this country needs, particularly as we rebuild post-pandemic. If some disagree with that—and some still do—we should surely be ambitious for Scotland and its democracy.

Scotland is a better country than it was when the Parliament was restored, and I think that it is a better country since the Scottish National Party entered government in 2007, but we can all do more, both in how we use our current powers and with the powers that we need to regain.

Increasingly, democracy is not just about what powers but about who gets to exercise them. We need to recognise that democracy is changing fast. The horrid experience of Covid and the resulting lockdown has accelerated a desire in communities across the country for change. They are telling us that nothing should be done to them or agreed for them that has not been decided with them.

Of course, the same imperative drives the issue of independence. It is also true, in Scotland, that nothing should be done to us or for us that has not been decided by us, but we must ensure that that imperative is answered across the country at every level. That is the developing challenge. The radical views of the citizens assembly are a sign of things to come. Power will have to shift and be shared, not just by the Parliament but by each party in the Parliament. Westminster must accept that in terms of Scottish self-determination, and this Parliament must accept it for all our communities, and embrace and enable it.

Edwin Morgan, our great first makar, told us, when we took possession of this wonderful building, to open our doors. He wrote:

“We give you our consent to govern, don’t pocket it and ride away.

We give you our deepest dearest wish to govern well, don’t say we have no mandate to be so bold.”

Boldness will be needed again—indeed, its time has arrived.

Finally, I will thank a few people for what I have experienced. I thank all my colleagues in this place and in the Government, at least a few of whom I hope to regard as friends still; I hope that they will think the same of me. I thank my two deputy ministers, and others with whom I have worked—I am sure that Graeme Dey and Jenny Gilruth in particular have great futures ahead of them once I am no longer holding them back.

I thank the many parliamentary officers and staff who have done so much for me over the years, including in my role as a founder member of the first Parliamentary Bureau, of which I am the last member still in this place, and subsequently in attempting difficult, but not impossible, tasks such as taking a complex bill through all its stages in a single day, as we did together last April.

I thank all the imaginative and dedicated civil servants at every level with whom I have worked in six different ministerial roles. In particular, I thank those who have led my private offices during that time, who have become key advisers and friends: my private secretary since 2007, Scott Sutherland, Darren Dixon, Laura Holton, Ellen Burt, and the one who has suffered Brexit with me, and suffered me for most of the past five years, Kirsty Hamilton.

In my constituency, I express my thanks to Ron Simon, who set up my office in Dunoon and who, tragically, is no longer with us. I also thank my extraordinary and talented team: Heather Wolfe, Keir Low and, above all, Marie-Claire Docherty. I am going to miss them all. I also thank my family, of course, who may now see more of me, if they so wish.

Finally—it is honestly finally, Presiding Officer—I thank those who allowed me to come here, not to speak for myself but to speak for them. Not only is Argyll and Bute, encompassing as it does not only 23 inhabited islands but a large part of the western seaboard of Scotland, the most beautiful constituency in Scotland; its people are among the very best. It has been a huge honour, and nearly always a huge pleasure, to have served them to the best of my ability over the past decade, and to have served the people of the South of Scotland, whom I represented for two sessions before that. I say to them: thank you for trusting me—I hope that I have, in the greatest part, done what you wanted, expected and needed, and I hope that you choose Jenni Minto to do even more.

I have quoted Edmund Burke in the chamber before, but it does no harm for me to do so again, and remind us of his wisdom. Addressing the electors of Bristol in 1774—the very electors who threw him out five years later—he wrote this:

“it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents ... It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures ... to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.”

I said my first words in what was then the newly convened Scottish Parliament on 13 May 1999—the second sitting day, when I raised a point of order concerning the election of the First Minister. I spoke for the first time in this chamber as the newly appointed Minister for Environment—the best job that I ever had—on 31 May 2007. I must have spoken here hundreds of times since, although, not being Stewart Stevenson, I have not kept count.

Now I am speaking for the last time, although I may move a motion later on. I am grateful to you all for listening. Thank you. [

Applause

.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

T

hank you very much, Mr Russell. That concludes portfolio questions.

Scotland’s Railway

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

The next item of business is a statement by Michael Matheson on Scotland’s railway. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement; there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I wish to update the Parliament on arrangements for Scotland’s rail services over the coming period and as we look to the future. In doing so, I look to provide certainty to rail staff, rail users and the businesses and communities that are served by our railway.

Covid-19 has impacted all parts of Scottish society, and rail services are no different. I thank rail workers across Scotland for their efforts in ensuring that passenger and freight rail services have continued to run throughout the pandemic.

We must recognise the fundamental impact that our difficult, but necessary, decisions to restrict travel have had on the financial position of passenger rail services, with revenue dropping to less than 10 per cent of pre-pandemic levels.

Throughout the restrictions, the Scottish Government has provided essential funding to ensure the continuation of passenger rail services and to provide security of employment for rail staff. The funding has been provided through emergency measures agreements, which temporarily vary both the ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper franchise agreements.

The current agreements are due to end on 31 March 2021. I can now confirm that we will seek to put in place further agreements until 19 September 2021. Any further agreements beyond that date will be subject to approval by ministers and additional consequential funding being made available to the Scottish Government.

It is right that we focus our collective efforts at this time on tackling this horrendous virus, but we should take a moment to reflect on a time in the future when circumstances will allow passengers to return to our railway. In future, I want to see a commuter offer that matches modern working patterns. I want to see our railway play a central role in tourism and railway heritage, enabling our visitors and rail enthusiasts to explore all that is great about Scotland. I want our railway to support businesses, through connectivity and innovation in technology and railway manufacturing. I want to see our rail freight sector continue to deliver the goods for Scotland.

It remains my strongly held view that a public sector controlled, integrated passenger railway is the model that will best deliver that for Scotland. Such a model would enable a more cohesive, fleet of foot, strategic decision-making structure between rail infrastructure and services, with full accountability to the Scottish Government.

However, that model cannot be delivered under the existing legislative framework, which is reserved. That is why we have repeatedly sought the full devolution of rail powers to this Parliament. Our requests to the United Kingdom Government have so far been rejected.

On more immediate matters, the current ScotRail franchise is expected to end in March 2022. I am therefore required at this time to make decisions on what will come after the current ScotRail contract. As I have stated many times, I believe that the current franchising system is no longer fit for purpose. Keith Williams, who led the UK rail review, has said publicly:

“franchising cannot continue in the way that it is today.”

He expressed the same view to me when I met him in June 2019.

Despite UK ministers stating on 9 December 2020 that the white paper would be “out within six weeks”, still we wait.

The impact of the pandemic and the continued uncertainty about pending reform makes any franchise competition especially unwise at this time. The cost and risk involved would be significant and I will not divert scarce time and resources to pursue a competition that risks failing. I therefore confirm that we will not hold a franchise procurement competition to secure successor arrangements for the ScotRail franchise.

In December 2019, the Scottish ministers decided not to rebase and continue the current ScotRail franchise beyond the scheduled break point expected in March 2022. I know that Abellio was disappointed by that outcome, but its response has been professional, particularly in dealing with the impact of the pandemic. I place on record my thanks to Abellio and its staff.

I have carefully considered the possibility of directly awarding a contract to Abellio to continue to run services beyond March 2022 and, in particular, how that option would align with our recently published revised franchising policy statement. Based on those considerations, I have concluded that a direct award to Abellio would not be conducive to the fulfilment of our policy objectives.

My officials have been working closely with rail industry partners over time to explore the potential for a greater integration of rail services and the benefits that that may bring. We have the energy and commitment to progress that with pace, but the continued UK Government delay in concluding its rail review has hampered our progress.

Following detailed consideration of all options against the background of the current legislation, the revised franchising policy statement and the continuing uncertainty arising from the Covid-19 pandemic and the delay in the UK white paper, I consider that the award of a franchise agreement to any party at this time would be detrimental to the fulfilment of our rail policy objectives.

Over the past year, my officials at Transport Scotland have been making preparations to ensure that operator-of-last-resort arrangements are ready to be deployed. I therefore confirm that the operator of last resort will run ScotRail services after the end of the current franchise contract. That means that from the expiry of the current franchise, ScotRail services will be provided within the public sector by an arm’s-length company owned and controlled by the Scottish Government.

That will provide stability and certainty for passengers and staff, and will place the operation of ScotRail services in public hands from the end of the current contract. ScotRail staff will transfer to the new Scottish Government-owned company with their terms and conditions protected. That period of stability will provide a platform from which we can assess the scale and pace of recovery from Covid-19 and progress options for reform—in particular, my preferred model of an integrated public sector-controlled railway. Standing the lack of clarity in relation to rail reform proposals, I am not able at this stage to confirm how long I expect operator-of-last-resort arrangements to be in place. That will be considered further as the shape and pace of reform becomes clearer.

The rail industry has faced unprecedented challenges through Covid-19 and I thank rail workers across our country for their efforts. As we look to a period of necessary and overdue reform, it is my duty to secure the continued operation of stable and efficient rail services within the existing legislative framework.

In taking the approach that I have announced today, we will secure the stable delivery of rail services within public hands and under Scottish Government control, which will provide certainty for passengers and rail staff. I firmly believe that that approach will best serve the interests of passengers and taxpayers in the future.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. We have about 20 minutes for that. It would be helpful if any member who wishes to ask a question could press their request-to-speak button or type R in the chat box, if they are remote.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I too thank all the staff on Scotland’s railways for the work that they are doing during the pandemic.

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of his statement, in which he seems to be blaming the UK Government for the problems in Scotland’s railways. However, it is the Scottish Government that has presided over cancelled services, delayed services, stop skipping—the list goes on.

Now, the Scottish Government is putting forward this proposal. Nearly £500 million has been spent on emergency measures that were designed, rightly, to keep services going during the pandemic. Therefore, will the cabinet secretary confirm that the emergency agreement that is in place with ScotRail could be extended to March next year? I know that he has said that it will not be, but could it be, in order to ensure stability for railway staff and customers? Can he also say what the cost of the new body that he will set up will be, and how he will ensure that it will be viable when it is competing for money with other public services?

Finally, the cabinet secretary mentioned the Williams review, which we are all awaiting with interest. Could his plans change when that report is published?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Mr Simpson suggested that we are in some way trying to blame the UK Government for some of the challenges that we have on Scotland’s railways. He will be aware that ScotRail is one of the highest-performing train operating companies in the whole of the UK. The UK Government can take responsibility for its own rail failings, which are significant across a range of its franchises. I do blame the UK Government for being wedded to the need to ensure that rail services operate within the private sector. It believes that that is the way in which it should operate, not for practical but for dogmatic reasons. That constrains our ability to configure Scotland’s rail services in a way that can best meet the needs of our communities and the travelling public who make use of the services. That is why we need a much more integrated rail system in Scotland. We should have infrastructure and passenger services that are much more aligned rather than following the fractured, broken approach that we have as a result of the UK Government’s policy agenda and the legislation within which we have to operate.

I will deal with each of the other points that Mr Simpson raises. The EMA that I have set out will cost in the region of £173 million between now and September. That could be less, depending on passenger recovery rates. As I said, given the lack of sight that we have from the UK Government on future consequentials for Covid recovery, at this stage, we do not have a line of sight beyond September, so we cannot say whether we can run it forward into March of next year. However, should that funding be available, our intention is to complete the process to March of next year.

On the cost of the new body, that will be met internally within the existing rail budget. It will not be an additional cost over and above what we are already investing in rail.

We are awaiting the outcome of the Williams review, which has been completed—it has been completed for almost a year. The reason why we are waiting appears to be serial incompetence on the part of UK Government ministers who are unable to publish a white paper that is informed by the review. The consequence of that is that we are prevented from taking forward reforms that could improve rail services in Scotland, and others are prevented from taking forward reforms that, I suspect, would very much improve rail services in parts of England. I hope that Mr Simpson will use his hotline to his colleagues in Westminster and tell them to get their finger out and start moving forward with their rail reform programme, including here in Scotland.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement, which I believe will be widely welcomed by rail users and workers. We should remember that, when Scottish National Party ministers awarded that contract to Abellio, they said that the services would be world leading, but the reality was that we have been plagued by cancellations, overcrowded services and spiralling fares, which have forced that franchise to be axed.

Given where we are now, first, does the cabinet secretary agree that the trade unions—the workers and their representatives—need to be part of the discussion and planning moving forward? Secondly, will he commit to addressing the issue of affordability? Many constituents across Mid Scotland and Fife tell me that they can no longer afford to use the railways.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am grateful to Mr Rowley for his contribution. This is the first opportunity that I have had to welcome him to his portfolio. I wish him well and look forward to working with him over the next 10 days or so before Parliament goes into recess.

On the first of the specific points that he raised, trade unions will of course be involved in the planning process and in considering the arrangements that will be put in place as we move towards bringing ScotRail into public hands next March. I will ensure that the trade unions are able to make representations in the process of taking the planning forward

Secondly, I recognise the issue of the affordability of using our rail services. In Scotland, we have a cap on rail fare increases, which means that, on average, rail fares in Scotland are about 20 per cent cheaper than they are anywhere else across mainland UK, as a result of our specific policy on that issue. Mr Rowley will be aware of the limited increase to rail fares in Scotland as a result of the change in January, which was the lowest for any part of the UK, including the increase that his colleagues introduced in Wales. However, there is a need for us to minimise the cost increases to the travelling public, because we want to encourage people to use our rail services, given the environmental benefits that can come from making greater use of public transport overall.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I have allowed the first couple of questions to be of some length, but I have 13 minutes and 11 questioners, so members can do the arithmetic. I would like short questions and short answers.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Can the cabinet secretary expand on what will happen between now and March 2022? Can he assure us that there will be a smooth handover and that passengers will not be impacted?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Considerable work has already been undertaken around planning for the operator of last resort. Those plans will now be activated and arrangements will be put in place to start to populate a management structure with staff who will take forward the management of the transfer. It is intended that we do that through as smooth a process as possible, because we want to minimise disruption to staff and passengers. I am confident that that can be achieved if we work together in order to do it. That process, and the structures that are necessary to make the transfer as smooth as possible, will start to move forward over the next couple of months.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

Creating yet another public body to take the blame for Scottish Government failings is the usual way for the SNP, but why has it taken so long—

after 14 years in Government and nearly 3 million minutes of delays in the past nine years? Can the cabinet secretary not just apologise to commuters and taxpayers for the delays and money wasted and explain how the body will help commuters in the north-east?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I am somewhat surprised at Alexander Burnett’s question. He clearly has little knowledge of Scotland’s rail network and how effective it is compared with the vast majority of train operating companies across the UK, and of the £8 billion of investment that we have made in our rail network since 2007. The people in the north-east of Scotland have had significant benefits from that investment, with new railway stations and infrastructure, new and refurbished rolling stock and the renovation of Aberdeen railway station that we are taking forward.

We will continue to make sure that we are ambitious about Scotland’s rail infrastructure; that will continue when it is under public control—the control of the Scottish Government—and we will continue our record investment of almost £5 billion between now and 2024.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Will the cabinet secretary advise the Parliament what targets will be set for improvements in rail services by the new arm’s-length company and over what timescale they will be set?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

For any rail service to operate effectively, there has to be a matrix of performance targets to drive forward the delivery of services, in much the same way that targets operate at present for franchises. Targets

are embedded in the existing emergency measure agreements around punctuality, passenger experience, affordability, quality of rolling stock and other measures. Those measures will be built into the matrix that will be provided for in the changed contract arrangements. In that way, we can ensure that we hold fully to account those who are responsible for running our rail services, and we can ensure that they are driving forward improvements.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

I welcome today’s announcement. The cabinet secretary is a late convert to something that I have been calling for him to do for some time. If he is genuinely in favour of public ownership, why has he not ended the Serco Caledonian sleeper franchise and used the powers that he holds to run those services through an operator of last resort, in the way that he has done for the Abellio ScotRail franchise?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

We have taken the decision in this way because of the end of the Abellio ScotRail contract in March 2022. Following the change in contract for the ScotRail services, we will review the existing franchise arrangements that we have in place for the Caledonian sleeper.

I very much hope that we now have Colin Smyth on board and that he accepts that there should be full devolution of rail powers to Scotland and not the approach that has been taken previously, whereby Network Rail remains a UK body and rail powers are centralised in London. Instead, to allow us to make decisions in the interests of the people who use Scotland’s rail network, all aspects of our rail services should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I very much welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement. However, will he clarify what the implications will be for the promised improvements to the Fife circle, which is an issue of particular interest to my Cowdenbeath constituents?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Annabelle Ewing raises a good point. As a result of moving ScotRail services into public ownership, the investment in Fife will continue. For example, our investment in the reopening of the Levenmouth line will continue; that work has already started. Annabelle Ewing will be aware that, in the phase 1 report of the second strategic transport projects review process, I set out the partial electrification of the Fife circle, alongside the use of battery electric trains, to improve not only the environmental aspects of services but punctuality and the quality of the rolling stock, all of which will benefit people in Fife. That investment will continue with the move into public ownership of ScotRail.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I warmly welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement. We support the full devolution of rail powers. The cabinet secretary said that he would

allow the trade unions to make representations. Rather than the trade unions responding to decisions that have already been taken, will he ensure that they are round the table shaping the new service?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I recognise John Finnie’s long-standing interest in the matter and his shared view of the need to have a publicly controlled integrated rail network in Scotland. I will ensure that the trade unions are part of the process in taking forward the change to public ownership of ScotRail services.

This might be the final opportunity that I have to respond to my colleague John Finnie before he retires from the Parliament. I wish him well for the future. Throughout the years, I have always enjoyed our engagement across the chamber and in committees.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

[

Inaudible

.]—privatisation is the “poll tax on wheels”—[

Inaudible

.]—a Conservative MP over 25 years ago. It is about time that the Conservatives finally listened to his advice. As passenger numbers were in decline before the pandemic, how will the new model help to integrate different modes of transport and make public transport more attractive?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Cabinet secretary, did you get most of that?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I think that I got most of the latter part of Mr Rennie’s question.

Passenger numbers on our rail network have been increasing, largely because of the expansion of services, opening of additional routes and expansion of timetables. We have seen that growth over a number of years; we want to build on it and to maintain it as we come out of the pandemic. A key part of that will be in making sure that we have a range of products to help to incentivise commuters back on to our rail network, when they are able to use it—as they return to their places of work and as we ease the restrictions. I assure the member that I am keen to make sure that passengers return to our rail network in the numbers that were there prior to the pandemic and that we will be considering all the measures that we can put in place in order for that to happen.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary expand on the limitations that arise from the network not being 100 per cent accountable to Scottish ministers, such as across my South Scotland region, in which the Stranraer to Ayr and Dumfries to Glasgow lines are owned by Network Rail?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

An on-going problem within the rail network in Scotland and across the whole UK is the fractured nature of how passenger services operate and the fact that they are not aligned with the infrastructure provision that is run by Network Rail. Fundamentally, that has to be addressed if we are to resolve those issues. The vast majority of delays and problems on our rail network are caused not by the rail operating company but by infrastructure failures. We need to address that effectively. That is why an integrated rail body that can deliver our rail services in the south-west of Scotland—such as in Emma Harper’s region—are absolutely critical. That is what we must have the powers to do here in Scotland, as part of any rail reform package that is brought forward by the UK Government.

Bill Bowman (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I

n the coming weeks, the rail trade unions may press ahead with strike action in their claim to get more money for overtime. Does the cabinet secretary support such action or view it as counterproductive, given that the railway in Scotland is suffering from the most significant crisis in its history?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I recognise and respect the right of trade unions to make representations on behalf of their workers. That is fundamental in any basic society. However, I would encourage both the trade unions and the employers to remain engaged in trying to find a resolution to those issues. I am aware that one of the trade unions has already agreed to a limited period of extension of the existing arrangements, given the difficulties that the pandemic has caused, such as with the limited ability to train drivers, which has an impact on rest-day arrangements. I encourage the other trade unions to follow suit. However, we should also respect the right of trade unions to take forward matters and to make representations on behalf of their members.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Does the cabinet secretary share my disappointment that some other members, including those from the Labour Party, will not join us in calling for a Scottish rail service, in Scotland‘s hands, with a full transfer of rail powers?

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The fundamental issues that hamper our ability to reform Scotland’s rail sector and rail services are the fractures between the different component parts that I previously mentioned and the limits to our powers under the existing railways legislation. The best way to shape our rail services and the delivery of our rail network in Scotland, in a way that reflects our needs and aspirations and the desires of our communities and those who use those services, is for that to be done here in Scotland. Instead of having timetabling carried out in Milton Keynes and then sent up to us, or decisions being made by Network Rail in its centralised headquarters and then passed down to us here in Scotland so we just have to suck it up, if you like, decisions should be arrived at here in Scotland that reflect our needs and circumstances and—importantly—there should be accountability for that to the Parliament and its members.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will just manage a very brief question from Neil Findlay.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

After years of being told that this was not possible, it now happens. It is very welcome news that the railways will be coming back into public organisation. It is absolutely essential that trade unions have representation on the board of any new company—not just consultation but representation on the board—to ensure that we do not get into the mess that we got into with Abellio.

Given that I am on my feet, I will ask this: will the cabinet secretary sort out the bus situation in Edinburgh, which is a disaster?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That was opportunistic.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

I must correct Mr Findlay. No one has ever said that this is not possible. We are using the operator of last resort process. We can put that measure in place, but it will not reform our rail services as they should be reformed under public sector control.

I warn Mr Findlay not to delude himself into thinking that that is the answer. Unless he supports the full devolution of control of rail powers to this Parliament, his aspirations will not be achieved. I hope that he will take that position, which has not been the position of his party. I hope that he will be able to convert his fellow members to supporting that position on the full devolution of powers.

I can assure him that we will look to engage trade unions in the process. I assure the member that it is our intention to do that as constructively as possible to ensure that the voice of unions is properly heard.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That concludes questions on the statement. I thank the cabinet secretary and members. We got everyone in, plus one more. That is good going.

Testing Strategy

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

The next item of business is a statement by Mairi Gougeon, providing an update on Scotland’s testing strategy. The minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.

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

Since the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport last updated Parliament, in November, we have made significant progress in rolling out our testing strategy and programme.

The strategy that was published in August last year gave five rationales for our priorities for testing for Covid-19 in Scotland: testing to diagnose anyone with symptoms of Covid-19; testing for clinical care of patients; testing to protect those who are most vulnerable to harm from Covid-19; proactive testing to find cases among people without symptoms; and testing for surveillance, to monitor prevalence and understand disease transmission.

I will say more about progress on each of those rationales, but a key aim of the strategy was to increase the daily capacity for polymerase chain reaction testing in Scotland to at least 65,000 by the winter of 2020. That has been achieved.

Since the beginning of December 2020, our focus has been on expanding the coverage of our testing programme and the available testing capacity in Scotland into the areas where we believe it can have the greatest impact as part of our response to the pandemic. That has been aided by the availability of new types of testing technology, including rapid result lateral flow tests, which has allowed us to significantly expand the coverage of people with and without symptoms.

Under our test to care scheme, we have now extended testing to all those who have been admitted to hospital emergency departments, acute assessment centres, maternity units and emergency mental health units, as well as to all medical and surgical elective admissions.

As part of test to protect, all healthcare workers in patient-facing roles in our hospitals, in the Scottish Ambulance Service and in community-based Covid assessment centres, the healthcare professionals who visit care homes and staff working in hospices are now offered twice-weekly testing. The extension of testing to our primary care workforce—including our general practitioners, dentists, optometrists, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians—is also well under way and is on track to be completed by the end of this month. I can announce today that we will now implement testing of all remaining healthcare workers, including those in non-patient-facing roles, providing access to regular testing for more than 170,000 people who are employed by NHS Scotland.

We have also extended testing in social care, offering testing for up to two designated visitors a week for our 42,000 care home residents across Scotland. We have supplemented existing PCR testing of care home staff by providing additional lateral flow testing. We have also completed—a month ahead of schedule—the roll-out of testing to the care-at-home workforce, who are critical to supporting and caring for people so that they can continue to live as independently as possible in their own homes.

Proactive case finding remains a key part of our response to the pandemic. Since 18 February, all close contacts of index cases have been able to book a PCR test between days three and five after exposure to a confirmed positive case.

At a community level, test to find is a core part of the rationale for targeted community testing. Proposals are developed with local partners to address problems of stubbornly high transmission, rapidly rising transmission or specific transmission risks in communities, and I can advise Parliament that proposals for targeted community testing have now been agreed with 20 local authorities across eight health board areas. We have 28 asymptomatic test sites and 12 mobile testing units providing access to community testing, with more sites planned to open soon.

As well as continuing to offer campus testing to students at times of large population movement, we have now extended access to PCR testing to students prior to their travelling to accommodation at university or college. Plans are also being developed to roll out regular testing for university and college students and staff.

To manage the risk of importation of the virus from abroad, from 15 February, quarantine testing was introduced for people arriving in Scotland from outside the common travel area. All such people are tested twice during their quarantine period, on day 2 and day 8 of the 10-day quarantine, with all day 2 positive test results being sent for sequencing in order to detect any possible variants of concern.

The most recent expansion, which was announced in February, extended routine testing to support the maintenance of essential services, to mitigate wider social and economic harms and, crucially, to provide an additional protective layer to support the easing of restrictions for key groups and sectors.

To support the safe return of schools, we have introduced twice-weekly at-home testing for all staff in primary, secondary and special schools and for all secondary school pupils, with the secondary 1 to 3 cohort due to commence testing after the Easter break. Staff in school-based early learning and childcare settings can also receive testing as part of the offer, and I can announce today that, from the end of this month, access to testing will be extended to all stand-alone facilities in the public, private and third sectors that provide early learning and school-age childcare services.

Further roll-out of regular asymptomatic testing is also now available to food production and distribution businesses, whose workplaces, by their nature, can present a higher risk of transmission due to factors such as low temperatures, high humidity and limited ventilation. More than 60 businesses are now registered with the scheme and are undergoing the relevant training and induction processes.

In the public sector, to support the continued safe running of essential services, we have now implemented regular testing in the control rooms of the Scottish Ambulance Service, Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, as well as in NHS 24 call centres.

In the early part of this year, we have seen the emergence of new and more transmissible variants of the virus and outbreaks in closed settings. To help to address those, we plan to introduce testing of staff who are working in prisons to reduce the risk of asymptomatic prison staff importing the virus into the prison environment. That will start with three prisons, so that we can assess the operational feasibility and public health impact of that type of testing.

We have made rapid and significant progress across all five priority areas for testing, and it is therefore appropriate that we now publish an updated and refreshed strategy. The fundamental purpose of our strategy and testing programme will not change. Testing on its own is not a panacea. It does not stop transmission in and of itself; it gives us information to help us to take action to stop that spread and to enable us to take the right decisions at the right time. That purpose will become even more important as we determine how best to integrate and deploy our testing strategy and programme to support the safe easing out of lockdown restrictions in the next phase of the pandemic.

The activity that I have just set out will continue. We will continue to test to diagnose people who are ill so that, if they have Covid, they isolate to stop the spread. We will test for the clinical care of people in hospitals and to protect those who are most vulnerable to the worst harm. We will keep testing to find cases wherever we are most likely to find them, whether or not the person has symptoms. We will test to support our essential services and the people who work in them and to mitigate the wider social and economic harms that are caused by the pandemic. We will also continue to test to monitor prevalence, which is crucial to safeguarding the progress that we have made through all our efforts to do the right thing and adhere to the protective measures that are in place and through the success of our vaccination programme.

As transmission continues to reduce, as we hope it will, the next phase will mean a return to more sporadic outbreaks and there will be a continuing risk of importing new variants that could undermine our progress. Whole-genome sequencing improves our ability to address both of those threats. We also need to be ready for the threats of the future, not just for the next three months but for the next three years and beyond. Health threats will continue to emerge, so we must build a legacy that will help us to prepare for those future threats and that will help to build a world-class public health system in Scotland.

Today, the First Minister has announced that, next year, we will invest more than £13 million in developing a truly world-leading Scottish whole-genome sequencing service. Sequencing has already proven to be a powerful method of detecting new variants that are of concern and of investigating links between strains in outbreaks. It helps us to understand transmission better and to design treatments, it gives us early warning of new strains, and it builds a legacy for the future. Scotland’s sequencing science is already world leading. With the investment, we will build on that science to create a service that can help in our next critical stages of responding to the pandemic, that can sequence up to 1,000 cases a day if necessary, and that helps us to deal with the risks of today and tomorrow. The service will underpin our updated approach to testing. That approach will continue to be refreshed as we adapt to the pandemic conditions that we face and seek to incorporate and deploy emerging technologies.

There are two core messages that we want everyone to note from the updated strategy that we have published today. The first is how far we have come. At the start of the pandemic, before test and protect was launched, Scotland had a daily testing capacity of 350 tests. By the end of this month, the daily testing capacity across the entire system will be at least 250,000 tests a day. We now have eight drive-through regional test sites, 42 mobile testing units, 33 walk-through local test sites and 21 small-scale test sites located across the country. I say a heartfelt thank you to everyone who has helped to design, develop and deliver the sites and all our testing capacity—there are literally thousands of workers and volunteers all over Scotland involved in that shared national endeavour.

The second message is that we all need to know when, how and where to get a test. As we learn to live with the threat of the virus and seek to return safely to our everyday activities and lives, we must keep testing and must test more and in more circumstances. Put simply, testing must become part of our everyday lives, offering an important layer of protection in the months ahead, alongside vaccination and other measures including social distancing, self-isolation, hand washing and face covering.

Testing will help us to return to activities that have been largely restricted over the past year, and it will help us to increase social contact, which is vital for our mental wellbeing and relationships. In short, testing will help us to move on from the present and into the future.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We

have around 20 minutes for questions. I ask members who are present in the chamber and who wish to ask a question to press their request-to-speak button. Members who are contributing remotely should type R in the chat function.

Donald Cameron (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement. This week, we passed the one-year point from when the United Kingdom first entered a nationwide lockdown. On a more positive note, as of today, 26.5 million people in the UK have received their first dose of the vaccine, which is almost half the adult population, with nearly 2 million people in Scotland having received theirs. However, we must remain vigilant, and it is critical that we continue to utilise testing as much as possible, given its crucial role in combating the virus.

I welcome the various announcements that have been made today, although they have been a long time in coming. For example, community testing was first announced in December, three months ago. Why has it taken so long to put community testing in place?

The Scottish Government currently has access to testing capacity of around 77,000 tests a day. We have just been told that, by the end of March, the daily capacity across the entire system will be at least 250,000 tests a day. Can the minister explain why only 17,000 people were tested yesterday? That shows that the Government is nowhere near making full use of the existing testing capacity.

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

I thank Donald Cameron for raising those questions. He asked about community testing and why we have not been able to roll that out sooner. We had the first pilot for community testing last December. Of course, like any such projects that we undertake, it was really important that we evaluated the lessons to see what we could replicate as quickly as possible.

A really important aspect of our targeted community testing is the fact that we have done it in conjunction with health boards and local authorities. As I said in my statement, we have managed to roll out community testing to 28 local authority areas, which is no mean feat, given that we are only into March.

The engagement has been really important in making sure that we are testing in the right places and where that is most appropriate for local circumstances. I hope that the member recognises those points and accepts them.

In his second question, about the utilisation of capacity, the member makes an important point. As I outlined in my statement, we have seen a huge increase in our capacity, including in relation to our PCR testing and lateral flow devices. The strategy document that we have released today is vital in that respect, because it outlines how we intend to use that capacity. I also highlight the importance of retaining an element of that capacity, especially in the next few stages as we ease out of lockdown. Should there be other outbreaks for which we need to utilise that testing resource, it is important that we have that capacity. We have set out today in our plan how we intend to utilise the capacity.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I thank the minister for the advance copy of her statement.

Scottish Labour has long called on the Government to take seriously the need for more testing, so I welcome much of what the minister has announced. The vaccine has been great news, but the experts are clear that the virus will be here for some time yet, so we need robust testing and tracing to find and isolate outbreaks.

The Scottish Government’s own Covid-19 advisory group has said that

“It would be desirable to test more people ... even if this increased test positivity”

and that that expanded testing and community testing could be “a game changer”. However, community testing is still too small in scale. Last week, fewer than 6,000 asymptomatic tests were carried out at community sites. They uncovered 155 positive cases. How many more are going undetected?

Does the minister accept that there is a need to expand community testing even further and to advertise it to local people, especially as restrictions lift? After all the effort to scale up Scotland’s testing capacity, why is the Government content to let more than 50,000 gold-standard PCR tests go unused every day, as asymptomatic cases go untested?

Finally, from November to January, only 30 per cent of self-isolation support grant applications were awarded. That is woeful, and I am worried that some people will refuse tests and not self-isolate as a result. It would be very helpful if the minister outlined what she will do urgently to rectify that problem.

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

Jackie Baillie has raised a number of really important points.

We want more people to take part in community testing. We want to roll it out throughout Scotland and ensure that we work with local authorities and health boards to do that in an effective way that will work.

The advertising element is absolutely critical. We need people to know that community testing facilities are available in their communities and that they can access them. We have worked with health boards on communications to ensure that they are doing all that they can locally, and the Government is doing what it can to advertise community testing and to encourage people to take part in it, when it exists in their areas. We are more than happy to look at the matter to see what more we can do to push the message even further out.

Jackie Baillie talked, as Donald Cameron did, about our PCR capacity and the fact that not all of it is being used. The prevalence of the virus has fallen in recent weeks, thanks to the efforts of everybody who has been sticking to the restrictions and guidelines, and thanks to progress in our vaccination programme. Prevalence falling means, of course, that there are fewer people with symptoms isolating and booking tests, because there are fewer people who are ill with Covid. As I said in my previous response, we know from experience that that can change. We need resilience in our testing system so that we can respond if demand increases again.

PCR testing is only one aspect of our testing programme. There is also extensive lateral flow testing for people without symptoms in schools and workplaces throughout the country. We will continue to use all our testing capacity as effectively as possible.

Jackie Baillie’s last point was about self-isolation, which is absolutely critical in relation to all the areas that we are looking at in tackling the pandemic. It is critical alongside vaccination, our testing programme and all the other non-pharmaceutical interventions, including social distancing and the wearing of face coverings. Self-isolation is key to the approach.

On the figures that we have for people who are self-isolating, a UK-wide survey showed that 80 per cent of people were adhering to self-isolation advice. We are undertaking our own work to identify exactly what the situation in Scotland is.

We need to ensure that people are aware of the support that is available to them, and it is crucial that we get that right. However, we have significant packages in place, and we are trying to help as many people as possible and to get the message about the support that is available out as much as possible.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

There are 12 minutes left, and 10 members want to ask questions. That tells members how short their questions should be. There must be single questions and short answers, please.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The virus has adapted, there are new variants of concern, and no doubt others will emerge in the coming weeks and months. How will the genomic sequencing scheme help us to detect new variants?

There is use of surge testing in England where there are community or localised outbreaks that are linked to new emerging variants, but that approach did not feature in today’s statement—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

No—that is not a short question. Can we have an answer to the first bit, please, which I think was about genomic sequencing?

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

Our expert advisers on genomics have told us that there is no scientific rationale for mass testing to try to find cases in order to eliminate new variants of concern. If a variant is identified through whole-genome sequencing, local health protection teams carry out enhanced contact tracing. That case is then reported through the four-nations twice-weekly publication on variants of concern. Our approach—which involves extending the circles of investigation and testing for positive cases of a variant of concern—has a clearer scientific rationale than mass testing of entire geographies. Essentially, it is also a quicker way of controlling and containing outbreaks.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you. Now, let us have short questions from now on.

Mr Whittle, you will set an example. You will be followed by George Adam.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

An outbreak at Kilmarnock prison involved almost 200 cases of Covid. Those included 40 staff, 18 of whom were asymptomatic. Why does the Scottish Government therefore still feel the need to assess operational feasibility and the impact on public health when the evidence is already clear?

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

Our whole approach to testing and where it is carried out has been based on the best clinical advice. We take a risk-based approach to the testing that we roll out, which we try to do as best we can, guided by such intelligence. That is the key to what has been set out in our strategy, including our approach on targeted community testing, working with local health boards and local authorities to see where testing can best be utilised and focusing it on areas in which there is high prevalence.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I will try to be quick and to set an example, Presiding Officer.

From the minister’s statement, it appears that the updated testing strategy suggests that testing will become part of everyday life. Will she explain further how that will work in practice? What role does she envisage testing playing in helping us to continue to respond to and suppress the virus?

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

Right from the beginning, test and protect has been an absolutely critical part of our response to the pandemic. It will continue to be vital as we cautiously ease restrictions and move out of lockdown

.

Of course, we must remember that the virus has not gone away. Anyone with symptoms should still isolate and book a test as soon as possible. Extending asymptomatic testing, including through community testing, will help us to find cases that might otherwise be missed. Finding such cases and supporting people who are affected to isolate and to break the chains of transmission will really help us to suppress the virus.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the Scottish Government support lateral flow testing as a way of allowing people to fly from our airports safely? If not, given the undercapacity in PCR testing, would the Government prefer that? Will it allow some testing at airports in order to save our connectivity?

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

Again, our strategy sets out the rationale for the types of tests that we use and where we use them, whether they be PCR tests or tests that use lateral flow devices. When it comes to opening up areas, including areas of the economy, those are all factors that we take into active consideration. We will look at all those aspects and consider them further.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Today’s news about the expansion of testing is certainly welcome. However, how will the data on testing be gathered and reported? How will it be used to inform our approach to testing and to managing the virus in the future?

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

Data on testing is absolutely vital and will continue to be reported in the usual ways. Daily data on confirmed results of PCR testing will be published on the Scottish Government’s website, and data on all aspects of lateral flow testing will be published in Public Health Scotland’s weekly Covid-19 statistics report. New data will be added to that from today and will be built on with additional data in the period ahead.

As we have set out in our strategy update, work is also continuing on development of an evaluation framework for the testing strategy, drawing on routine testing data, national surveys and local evaluations. Monitoring and evaluation across the whole testing programme will be used to inform our on-going approach to testing and managing the virus in the future.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the extension of asymptomatic testing for early learning and childcare settings, but what has been announced today falls way short of a workplace testing strategy for Scotland. Why will food businesses receive asymptomatic tests for their staff but people who work in waste management centres or bus depots will not, despite the fact that such settings have experienced serious outbreaks of Covid in recent months?

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

As I outlined in my statement, there are particular reasons for our rolling out of testing to food production and distribution, which are to do with the types of environment that exist there and the fact that the incidence of outbreaks has been high there. We therefore felt that that was the most appropriate area to look at first.

We must consider the situation by looking at the capacity that we have and how to best utilise it, so that we roll out workplace testing in accordance with our strategy. We essentially take a risk-based approach so that we can make sure that we use our capacity in the most effective way, and so that we can open the economy in a sustainable way.

I am more than happy to look at all the other areas that Mark Ruskell talked about. As part of our targeted community testing, we have been discussing with health boards and local authorities whether there are particular sectors in their regions that we can consider for the roll-out of testing. I would not say that anything has been ruled out, but we must take that risk-based approach and make sure that we make the best and most effective use of the capacity that we have.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

We have heard several times this afternoon that we are using only a third of our daily testing capacity. Although I understand that the Government will not prioritise key workers such as front-line police officers in the vaccine roll-out, perhaps it can prioritise them in the testing roll-out. We are testing control room staff—that is understandable—but when can we start testing our vital front-line police officers?

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

Alex Cole-Hamilton raises another important point, but that is not to say that we do not think that testing should not be done in those important areas. As I outlined in my statement, in rolling out testing to the call centres of all the emergency services, we were guided by the clinical advice on where the most appropriate use of testing would be and what type of testing that should be. We keep that under review. We are in constant discussion with the emergency services and other key sectors about where testing could best be used. Therefore, I would not rule anything out; the situation is one that we are monitoring constantly.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I welcome the expansion of testing to workers in food processing, as they have been critical during the pandemic.

How will the minister ensure that we reach agency or temporary workers who might be reluctant to take up the offer of testing because of the potential impact on their earnings if they have to self-isolate?

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

I want to elaborate on the response that I gave to Mark Ruskell when he asked about the food sector. The aim of the testing programme in that area is to contribute to the reduction of coronavirus-related risk in high-risk settings and, in doing so, to enhance the resilience of critical food supply. That will help to reduce the risk of the significant impacts on businesses and their employees that can occur when there is an outbreak.

We are engaging directly with all companies that have expressed an interest in testing to help them to understand the guidance and the practical steps that they need to take to proceed, and to ensure that they are aware of the importance of supporting any employees who are required to self-isolate as a result of a positive test. As I said to Jackie Baillie, that includes making companies aware of the extensive package of measures that are available to support people who need practical and financial support to self-isolate. We recently expanded eligibility for that and, as I said in my statement, 60 companies have registered an interest. Their average employee number is around 200 people, and they are located across 26 different local authorities in Scotland.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Testing patients who attend hospital, especially those who go to accident and emergency, will reduce the need for red and green routes. Is the minister confident that the proposed testing is robust enough to make red and green routes redundant?

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

I believe that the testing that we have put in place is robust. If the member wants to raise any particular concerns with me about that, I will be more than happy to correspond with him.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

I welcome the expansion of testing to all emergency service control room staff. Will it also be extended to all front-line emergency service workers?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Did you get that, minister?

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

I think that I picked it up, so I will respond to David Torrance as best I can.

The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland identified their operational control rooms and command, control and co-ordination functions as being business critical for the delivery of emergency services. Therefore, asymptomatic testing of that group of staff is a vital part of business continuity, as it will ensure that any potential cases of Covid-19 are quickly identified in those critical operations of our emergency services.

We have also implemented regular testing for all Scottish Ambulance Service staff as part of our roll-out of healthcare worker testing, and we are actively considering expanding testing in the police and fire and rescue services to specific staff groups where other Covid mitigations such as physical distancing or working outside are challenging. That includes areas such as driver training and staff who carry out wellbeing assessments.

As I have said in previous responses, our approach is driven by the expert clinical and scientific advice that we receive. We continue to monitor the situation and keep it under review.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I thank members. We got in all the questions in the time. I also thank the minister—I put you under a bit of pressure, but you got through it.

Business Motion

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S5M-24394, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

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

Groups 1 and 2: 30 minutes

Groups 3 to 5: 1 hour

Groups 6 and 7: 1 hour and 30 minutes—[

Graeme Dey

]

Motion agreed to.

Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, West Scotland)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Bill. Members should have before them the bill as amended at stage 2, the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings of amendments. As usual, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first vote of the afternoon. The period of voting for each division will be one minute. Any member who wishes to speak in a debate on any group should press their request-to-speak button as soon as I call that group.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list.

The Presiding Officer

Group 1 is on domestic abuse protection orders and notices: places where person A and person B cohabit. Amendment 1, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 2 to 6.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

At stage 2, amendments were made to the bill to introduce a requirement that, for the police to make a domestic abuse protection notice—DAPN—or the court to make a domestic abuse protection order—DAPO—person A and person B must live together some or all of the time. Amendments 1 to 6 address concerns that were raised by the police about the potential width of the power to make DAPNs and DAPOs by explicitly restricting the use of the power to cases in which a suspected perpetrator of domestic abuse and the person at risk of domestic abuse live together.

That approach was adopted because it is in such cases that a person at risk is most likely to benefit from the breathing space that a DAPN or a DAPO provides to take the longer-term steps that are necessary to address their safety and their housing situation without interference from an abusive partner or, indeed, an abusive ex-partner.

We consider that a possible unintended consequence of those amendments to section 1 is the risk that it could be read as requiring person A to live with person B in person B’s home. That is not our policy intent. Our policy intent is that it should be possible for a DAPN and a DAPO to be made regardless of where person A and person B live together. For example, if person B lives with person A in person A’s only home for three days a week and in their own home for the rest of the week, but person A has keys and regular access to person B’s home, it might be necessary to make a DAPN or a DAPO that requires person A, the suspected perpetrator, to surrender the keys to the home of person B, the person at risk, and prohibits them from entering or coming within a certain distance of that home. Amendment 1 makes it clear that a DAPN or a DAPO can be made if person A and person B live together in any place where either of them lives to any extent.

Amendments 2 to 6 are intended to ensure consistency in the drafting to avoid any possible confusion about which of the places where person B lives is the home of person B, when the focus should be on whether it is necessary to make provision in respect of any of the places where person B lives. I know that that is somewhat complicated, particularly if people have not been following the bill, but I hope that that clarifies the matter. The amendments make it clear that, in a case where person B—the person who is potentially at risk—lives in more than one place, the provisions in question can be made in respect of any or more than one of those places, provided that such provision is necessary.

I should make it clear that provisions can be made in a DAPN only if the senior constable who makes the notice considers it necessary for the purpose of protecting the person at risk from such abusive behaviour by the suspected perpetrator. As such, where the person at risk sometimes lives at their own home and sometimes at the home of their partner or ex-partner, I expect that it would not normally be necessary to use the power to prohibit their partner or ex-partner from entering both their own home and their partner or ex-partner’s home.

I move amendment 1.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Section 5—Content and effect of notice

Amendments 2 to 6 moved—[Humza Yousaf]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 2 is entitled “domestic abuse protection orders: consent and matters to be taken into account by sheriff”. Amendment 9, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 10 to 19.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

If you will forgive me, Presiding Officer, I will take a bit of time to explain how we have arrived at the position that we have. With your indulgence, given the nature of how we have arrived here, I will be happy to take interventions if members wish to intervene.

At stage 2, amendments were introduced that required the consent of a person at risk before a domestic abuse protection order could be made. As I said at stage 2, it was a finely balanced decision for the Scottish Government to lodge those amendments. After further reflection, I have lodged amendments 9 to 11 to remove the requirement for consent from the person at risk before a full DAPO can be imposed and replace it with a provision that requires the court to take into account any view of a person at risk as to whether they wish an order to be made when assessing whether to make a DAPO. However, making a DAPO will not—this is crucial—require consent.

Amendments 12 to 14 provide that, where person B does not wish an order to be made, the sheriff must take that into account and any of the reasons for that view of which the sheriff is aware. However, amendment 11 makes it clear that a lack of consent would not stop a DAPO from being imposed if the court is satisfied that that should happen, having applied the relevant tests in section 8.

Amendments 15 to 19 amend sections 12 to 14 to ensure that a consistent approach is taken where an application for variation, extension or discharge of a DAPO is made to a court. The overall effect of those amendments is that the court, in assessing an application for a DAPO, is required to take into account the views of person B, the person at risk, and the reasons for those views.

The need for consent is not a requirement, however. In other words, withholding consent is not effectively a veto on a DAPO being imposed. Those views could be provided to the court either directly or indirectly, for example through a support agency. In considering whether to make a DAPO in a case where person B does not support the making of the order, the sheriff could take account of the extent to which person B’s reasons for not supporting the making of the order are likely to be a consequence of the long-term effects of the abuse, especially the effects that coercive and controlling behaviour can have on the victim of domestic abuse.

I wish briefly to explain why I have adjusted my views on this very sensitive area of the bill. In many cases, it may be that the views offered by person B inform a decision that no DAPO is to be imposed, but I now consider that that must be for the court to determine on a case-by-case basis. Having reflected on the matter very carefully ahead of stage 3, I believe that ensuring discretion for the court is the only way in which the fundamental purpose of the scheme of DAPOs can be delivered in each and every relevant case, which will enable the state to meet its responsibility to protect people at risk.

The amendments that I lodged at stage 2 were informed by discussions with Scottish Women’s Aid, which reiterated its view—and it has reiterated them again in a briefing sent to MSPs—that it is important to ensure that the process for making a DAPO respects person B’s autonomy and their right to make their own decisions about their safety. Furthermore, the Scottish Government has had practical concerns, in that it is unclear how effective a DAPO could be if person B did not support it being made.

The question was and remains how far we want the bill to go in this area. As I said when I was speaking at stage 2, I have always considered the arguments for and against providing for an absolute requirement for consent to be very finely balanced. Although we remain of the view that one of the benefits of the system involving the DAPO is that it enables people who are experiencing domestic abuse to become more empowered, we have concluded that an absolute requirement for consent, leaving no discretion whatsoever to the court, would unduly curtail the ability and indeed the obligations of the state to fulfil its responsibility to protect those at risk of domestic abuse.

In reaching that view, I have considered the European convention on human rights, which, crucially, imposes a positive obligation on the state to protect individuals from each other. The state has a positive obligation to take appropriate steps to protect vulnerable people affected by domestic abuse—which includes women and children—from threats that pose a risk to their lives, to their right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment or to their physical integrity. Significantly, for the purposes of the present issue, the European Court of Human Rights has specifically held that states need to put in place legal regimes that permit proceedings to be brought, even where allegations have been withdrawn.

It is important to remember that in order to make a DAPO, the sheriff will have to have been satisfied of the tests in the bill, which are that, first, person A, the suspected perpetrator, has engaged in behaviour that is abusive of person B, the person at risk; secondly, there is an immediate or imminent risk of person A engaging in further abusive behaviour towards person B; and, thirdly, it is therefore necessary to make the order for the purposes of protecting person B from the abusive behaviour of person A.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I

am grateful for the articulation of the point, which I am following with interest.

I am slightly struggling with one thing. The cabinet secretary amended in the requirement for consent at stage 2; he is now amending out that requirement. According to the letter of 15 March, that is as a result of legal advice saying that the provisions must comply with the ECHR. I get that, but what has changed between stage 2 and stage 3? Had that legal advice not been given at stage 2, or has the legal advice changed in some way?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

As the member will be aware, I cannot directly reference legal advice, and I was careful in my letter to him and the committee around that. It was simply a matter of further reflection. We had a discussion with Scottish Women’s Aid at or before stage 2, and we were persuaded by its concerns around consent and empowerment, as the committee probably was, too.

However, on further reflection—as Liam Kerr knows, the bill has, through no fault of anyone in the chamber, been expedited to a truncated timetable—we felt that we had gone too far. I will give an important example. We could have a situation in which the sheriff believes that all the tests have been met and person B is at imminent risk of danger from a suspected perpetrator, and that it is therefore necessary to grant a DAPO. However, regardless of whether the sheriff is convinced that there is an immediate or imminent risk, they cannot impose a DAPO if consent is withheld. That is my concern. If a perpetrator of abuse knows that an effective veto on a full DAPO being applied could be exercised by the person who is at risk, they may, through coercive control, attempt to engineer such an outcome.

All that I can say to Liam Kerr is that, on further reflection, between stages 2 and 3, it became apparent to us that the obligation on the state to protect a person who is at risk could conflict with the requirement for the person’s consent, which meant we got the balance wrong at stage 2, and therefore had to rectify that at stage 3 through these amendments. We have considered not just the European convention on human rights, but the Istanbul convention, in particular article 52. We consider that the policy behind the amendments that I have lodged at stage 3 reflects the fundamental purpose of the DAPO scheme, which is based on the Istanbul convention. Article 52 contains no requirements in respect of consent, but focuses entirely on the state’s ability to protect those who are at risk.

I will conclude on this point—forgive me, Presiding Officer, for taking my time with this group, because it is important. The question is how the law should balance the autonomy of a person who is at risk of domestic abuse to make their own decisions with the need to provide protection for vulnerable people who are at risk of domestic abuse, especially in a case in which that very autonomy is compromised by coercive control and perhaps years of abuse. There is a fine balance to struck. I consider that my amendments in this group strike the appropriate balance and, importantly, take into account the state’s duties and obligations to protect people who are at risk of harm.

I move amendment 9.

John Finnie (Green, Highlands and Islands)

At the outset, I declare my membership of the cross-party group on men’s violence against women and children. That is relevant, because I feel a measure of discomfort with what I am about to say. It is the only time that I can recall that I will take a different point of view from that of Scottish Women’s Aid, for which I have the highest regard. I will try not to repeat the detailed points that the cabinet secretary made, but—with your indulgence, Presiding Officer—I will explain why that is the case. I most certainly want women to be in control. There has been an on-going debate about the issue of consent. Scottish Women’s Aid has said:

“The problem with issuing orders without the woman’s consent is that non-consensual intervention further disempowers”.

I accept that point—I absolutely get that.

Much of what I was going to say was detailed in the cabinet secretary’s letter of 15 March to the Justice Committee. It concerns the issues around the threshold—the cabinet secretary referred it to as a “test”—that would have to be overcome to secure the issuing of a DAPO. I will not repeat the details, but the sheriff would have to be satisfied that the threshold has been reached.

In recent years, the Parliament has led the world in legislating on coercive and controlling behaviour. It is an invidious way in which women are manipulated, and that is often at the back of my mind when we discuss these matters. There are women who are not quite at the point of reaching out for help, but who are trusting others, whoever they might be. In his letter to the committee, the cabinet secretary used the phrase “Our considered view”. I have reflected in the same way—I emphasise again that I note everything that Scottish Women’s Aid has said in its briefing to members, and that the empowerment of women is important. It is a fine principle, which ordinarily I would unquestioningly accept. Of course, the legislation is not exclusively about women, but the victims of domestic violence are, overwhelmingly, women.

If the sheriff was satisfied that the high threshold to grant a DAPO was reached, but the victim’s consent was not forthcoming because of coercive and controlling behaviour, which can sometimes take a number of years to emerge, and that victim was subsequently harmed, that would trouble me. If one person is harmed, it is one too many.

I continue to support the principle of empowerment, but I have changed my position in this context. The Scottish Government has set out its rationale; it is for the Government to explain the state’s obligations. My concern is that if one victim is created as a result of the existing arrangements, that will be one too many. I support the amendments in this group.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will not repeat what others said. We need to note that the time of a relationship breakdown—and, in a way, domestic abuse protection orders and notices will bring forward the relationship breakdown by separating the couple—

is the most dangerous time for a victim of domestic abuse. It is the time when most murders happen. We must take every step that we can to protect victims of domestic abuse. We must also remember that victims have had their agency taken away for many years and we should not double down on removing their agency.

That said, I think that there are safeguards in the bill to allow what is proposed without destroying the victim’s agency. I seek some reassurance from the cabinet secretary. Can he make it clear that sheriffs will receive training? Not all sheriffs understand domestic abuse well, and if they are to carry out the work they really need a deep understanding so that they can take the views of the victim without further undermining that person. Training needs to be in place to ensure that, when action is taken, the victim feels that they have been listened to and understood and can understand why the sheriff is taking action that is contrary to their view.

A victim is open to coercion at such a time—of course they are—and if the perpetrator of the abuse knows what is happening they might stop the domestic abuse protection order process, which could leave the victim in a more vulnerable position. However, we have to ensure that the victim’s agency is not destroyed. I seek reassurance in that regard from the cabinet secretary.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank John Finnie and Rhoda Grant for making exceptionally important points. I hope that I can provide the reassurance that they seek.

I associate myself entirely with John Finnie’s remarks. I genuinely feel uncomfortable about taking a different view from Scottish Women’s Aid on any issue and particularly on issues to do with domestic abuse. I spoke to Marsha Scott, the chief executive of Scottish Women’s Aid, this morning, and we agreed to disagree, to an extent. I think that her feeling—and she could put this much better than I can in paraphrasing what she said—is that she is not quite as convinced as we are about the obligations on the state and how we get the balance right in that regard. However, I think that she recognises that if that is the advice that we have been given, we have had no choice but to lodge the amendments in this group.

I should say to John Finnie that I, as a Government minister, must ensure that any bill that I introduce is compatible with the ECHR, hence my lodging the amendments. Indeed, the Parliament has a similar obligation.

Rhoda Grant made her points well. On her first point, I reassure her that the bill makes it very clear that sheriffs must take into account the views of the person who is at risk—I set that out in detail in my earlier remarks. She made a good point about judicial training. That is not within my gift; judicial training is a matter for the Lord President, who exercises that function independently. However, if the bill is passed at stage 3, as I hope that it will be, I will be happy to discuss the matter with the Lord President. We are going into the pre-election period, so I will ask my officials to do that, and I hope that, after the election, whoever is justice secretary, depending on the results, will follow the matter up with sheriffs.

John Finnie and Rhoda Grant made excellent points and I am pleased that, on balance, everybody understands why we have got to this position, which is the right position to get to so that the state can fulfil its obligation of protecting people who are at risk of harm.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Amendments 10 to 14 moved—[Humza Yousaf]—and agreed to.

Section 12—Extension, variation or discharge of order

Amendments 15 to 17 moved—[Humza Yousaf]—and agreed to.

Section 13—Extension, variation or discharge of order: further provision

Amendment 18 moved—[Humza Yousaf]—and agreed to.

Section 14—Interim extension or variation of order

Amendment 19 moved—[Humza Yousaf]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 3 is on domestic abuse protection orders and the power to specify additional applicants. Amendment 20, in the name of Liam Kerr, is the only amendment in the group.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

My amendment 20 provides the Scottish ministers with a power to designate other bodies as being able to apply to a court for a domestic abuse protection order. That was something I initially sought to introduce at stage 2. Although support for the principle was indicated by both the cabinet secretary and Rhoda Grant, who was then justice spokesperson for Labour, I was persuaded by the cabinet secretary that such a regulation-making power should be future proofed.

It was also pointed out that, given the importance of the issues that have to be considered, it would be better for the procedure to be affirmative rather than negative, to give the Parliament a greater chance to scrutinise and be reassured that any bodies that were being added were fully ready to take that responsibility for training, resources and all the other matters that have been discussed. I found that argument persuasive and withdrew my amendments on that point to work with the cabinet secretary and his team to produce something better. We did so and I believe that that has been achieved, and I am grateful to the cabinet secretary and his team.

At present, the bill empowers the police but no other agency or organisation to apply for a DAPO. During the committee sessions, the idea of extending that power was raised, in particular by Scottish Women’s Aid and Police Scotland. The amendment specifically provides that local authorities, local authority landlords and registered social landlords could be empowered to apply for DAPOs. It was suggested at stage 1 that that would be appropriate.

Head (2)(d) of the amendment provides that the Scottish Ministers can use the power to provide

“any other person who the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate”

with the power to apply to a court for a DAPO.

Head (3) of the amendment introduces a requirement to consult with those whom it is proposed be given the power to apply for DAPOs prior to making the regulations. That is intended to ensure that those organisations that it is proposed are given the power have an opportunity to provide views prior to the making of the regulations.

Head (5) of the amendment ensures that regulations made under that power will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

In short, that was what I sought to achieve at stage 2 and what I think can properly be achieved now. I therefore commend my amendment to the Parliament.

I move amendment 20.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I will be brief, Presiding Officer. I thank Liam Kerr for initially lodging the amendment at stage 2 and then agreeing to withdraw it and work with the Government ahead of stage 3. I absolutely support what he is trying to do and he has articulated it very well and gone into the detail of the amendment, so I will not rehearse that.

Amendment 20 appropriately future proofs the legislation to allow other persons to be added to the list of those who can apply for a DAPO where appropriate to do so. I am also pleased that the level of scrutiny has been strengthened, requiring the affirmative procedure. I may be the first Government minister in history to argue for more scrutiny of an order than the Opposition has asked for, but it is the right thing to do. That recognises the significance of the issues that have to considered in making use of such a power and will give the Parliament a much greater chance to scrutinise and be reassured that any person whom the Scottish ministers may seek to give the ability to apply for a DAPO on behalf of a person at risk are suitably equipped and trained for such an important responsibility. I thank Liam Kerr for the constructive manner in which he has engaged with the Government. We will support amendment 20.

The Presiding Officer

Does Liam Kerr wish to add anything by way of winding up?

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have nothing to add.

Amendment 20 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 4 is on domestic abuse protection orders and notices and their relationship with orders regulating contact

or residence. Amendment 21, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is the only amendment in the group.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Domestic abuse protection notices and orders are designed as emergency interventions to protect people from domestic abuse, and we must ensure that that purpose cannot be undermined.

A number of organisations expressed concerns that the intention that domestic abuse protection notices and orders should take precedence over all other orders was not expressed in the bill and felt that that should be the case. That is especially the case with notices that are not required to be heard by a court.

Although I believe that we should explicitly say in the bill that all orders tying person A to their home are superseded by a domestic abuse protection notice or order, the cabinet secretary did not believe that that was required. However, he conceded that orders regarding children should be included in the bill. Therefore, head (a) of the amendment provides that nothing in a court order regulating contact with, or the residence of, a child limits the prohibitions or requirements that can be made in a domestic abuse protection notice or order.

Head (b) of the amendment provides that it is not a defence for breaching the domestic abuse protection notice or order that person A was doing something that they were entitled to do under another court order.

It is clear that, in order to provide the protection that is required, domestic abuse protection orders and notices must take precedence over any other orders tying person A to the home.

I move amendment 21.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

At stage 2, Rhoda Grant lodged an amendment intended to make clear the provisions of a DAPN

and that they must be complied with irrespective of any pre-existing court order that might contain a contrary provision. I was happy in principle for the bill to ensure that those who have a DAPN served on them are in no doubt whatsoever that the existence of, for example, a pre-existing child contact order does not mean that the DAPN could not make provisions preventing contact with that child. However, as Rhoda Grant has suggested, I indicated that I had some technical concerns around that amendment. I am pleased to say that I consider that amendment 21 very much addresses those concerns and makes it clear that the existence of a court order regulating contact with, or the residence of, a child does not limit the requirements or prohibitions that can be included in a DAPN or a DAPO.

For example, if a person who is subject to a DAPN or DAPO that prohibits them from contacting a child contacts that child, it would not be a defence that they were acting in accordance with an entitlement in a child contact order. I thank Rhoda Grant for the constructive way in which she has worked with the Government on the matter and I will support amendment 21.

Amendment 21 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 5 concerns reporting on the operation of part 1. Amendment 22, in the name of Liam Kerr, is the only amendment in the group.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Amendment 22 is about reporting on the operation of part 1 and introduces a reporting requirement for the Scottish ministers to examine and monitor the number of domestic abuse protection notices and orders that are made, the

number of offences for breaches that are reported, and the number of convictions obtained. Again, that was something that I brought forward at stage 2, as I was concerned at the lack of such a duty, particularly as there is such a duty under section 14 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. Further, Scottish Women’s Aid and the Law Society were generally in favour of such monitoring.

Again, the cabinet secretary indicated that he was sympathetic to the principle of information and data being available about the operation of new powers in the bill to help inform the Parliament and the Government when it comes to future policy. Of course, it will also help them to assess the effectiveness of the bill. However, again, the cabinet secretary suggested not moving the original amendment with a view to developing what I had proposed to make the provision as good as it could be and ensure that we capture both what is necessary and what is useful, and to ensure, of course, that the criminal justice agencies are capable of providing the data.

Therefore, amendment 22 provides for a reporting requirement for the DAPN and DAPO scheme. It requires information on the number of DAPNs, DAPOs and interim DAPOs made to be reported and for information to be reported about the number of extensions made to DAPOs. It also requires information to be reported on the number of prosecutions and convictions for offences for breach of a DAPN or a DAPO.

There is also the addition of a requirement to include

“information about the experience of persons who were, in respect of domestic abuse protection notices ... orders or interim ... orders, person B.”

All that will place a duty on the Scottish ministers to undertake work to establish the extent to which the system of DAPNs and DAPOs is effective in achieving its purpose of protecting persons who are at risk of domestic abuse.

Amendment 22 places the duty to report on the operation of the act during the first three years in which it is in effect.

Finally, MSPs will be interested to know that, in light of its interest in that matter, the amendment has been shared with Scottish Women’s Aid, which has indicated that it is content with it.

I move amendment 22.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Again, I thank Liam Kerr for the constructive manner in which he has engaged with the Government. I think that we have the balance right between quantitative and qualitative data. It is important that we have that in the amendment and it is really important for us to be able to understand the qualitative experiences of victims of domestic abuse, so I think that the reporting mechanism, which has become more common in legislation in recent years, is to be welcomed. I welcome Liam Kerr’s amendment 22, which the Government will support.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 6 is on guidance on certain matters connected with tenancy proceedings in cases involving domestic abuse.

Amendment 7, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 8. The cabinet secretary will move amendment 7 and speak to both amendments.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

Amendments 7 and 8 provide for the Scottish ministers to make guidance in relation to the changes that are introduced by section 18 of the bill, and to consult

“such persons as they consider appropriate”

in the development of that guidance. The amendments also place a duty on social landlords to have regard to any statutory guidance that is published by the Scottish ministers and the new power “for recovery of possession” or termination of a joint tenant’s interest in a Scottish secure tenancy, as set out in section 18 of the bill.

Amendment 7 amends an existing section of the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 on statutory guidance, to expand its remit to include cases where the new tenancy repossession or termination grounds are used.

Amendment 8 separately provides for guidance in respect of the new provisions that the bill introduces as new section 14(5C) of the 2001 act, which provides that landlords must provide “advice and assistance” to the perpetrator and any

“qualifying occupier in relation to the finding of alternative accommodation”.

We lodged the amendments to support social landlords in using the provisions and we will develop statutory guidance in consultation with key stakeholders in advance of bringing the provisions at section 18 of the bill into force. The guidance will cover a wide range of issues and positive practical examples, such as the type and level of evidence that landlords should consider before deciding to use the provisions, dealing with matters such as rent arrears and the types of advice and assistance that must be provided to perpetrators.

Amendments 7 and 8 moved—[Humza Yousaf]—and agreed to.

The Presiding Officer

Group 7 is on the provision of tenancy following termination of tenancy—or of interest in tenancy—in cases involving domestic abuse.

Amendment 23, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is grouped with amendment 24.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

In cases of domestic abuse, it is often the abuse survivor who has to flee their home and find alternative accommodation in a refuge or homeless accommodation. Often, the victim returns to their abuser because, although living in a refuge might provide safety, it is restrictive in space and freedoms, and homeless accommodation can be grim. That is especially the case if children are involved, because the survivor might feel that it is in their best interest to return home, due to their living conditions.

The bill endeavours to deal with that by trying to remove the abuser and allow the survivor to remain in their home. That raises issues with tenancies, whether they are joint tenancies or tenancies that are solely in the name of the abuser. My amendments seek, in different ways, to ensure that the survivor remains in the tenancy and becomes the legal tenant if that is their wish.

Amendment 23 would have the effect of the tenancy passing to the abuse survivor automatically, on the date that is contained in the eviction order that is issued by the court to end the tenancy of the abuser. That would ensure that the tenancy arrangement continued in the sole name of the survivor, regardless of whether they were a party to the original tenancy agreement.

Amendment 24 would allow for a new tenancy to be created in cases in which there are rent arrears, which would allow the survivor a fresh start, recognising that financial control is often part of domestic abuse. The amendment would allow 28 days for that to happen but stresses that it should happen as soon as practicable. The 28-day period might be required if the abuser has remained in the tenancy, and it might be the case that repairs and safety checks need to be carried out at the property before the survivor can safely take on occupancy.

Amendment 24 makes an exception to that duty in the very rare circumstances in which it is not possible or appropriate for the landlord to offer the tenancy to the survivor. For example, the landlord might be unable to locate the survivor, who may have gone off the radar because of being afraid of being tracked down by the abuser, or the survivor might be unsuitable for the tenancy for another reason. That could create a loophole, but, to avoid doing so, the amendment allows the Scottish ministers to issue guidance on what the exceptional circumstances might be.

The guidance must cover when a tenancy is deemed to be a continuation and when it should be a new tenancy in its own right. Where possible, a tenancy should be a continuation, but when there are rent arrears, those must be shared with the abuser, who cannot walk away and leave the survivor to deal with them. In that situation, it would be desirable to start a new tenancy.

The guidance must be clear that domestic abuse cases often involve antisocial behaviours, including rent arrears, drug or alcohol misuse and noise complaints. The guidance to landlords must ensure that they are aware of those issues and should not use them as a way of avoiding entering into a tenancy with the survivor. The survivor must be supported to continue the tenancy.

I move amendment 23.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

I thank Rhoda Grant for articulating her reasons for lodging

amendments 23 and 24. I will speak about amendment 24 first, because we intend to support it. We do not intend to support amendment 23—I hope that my explanation will provide members with the reasons for that.

I thank Rhoda Grant for working closely with the Government on amendment 24. As she has said, amendment 24 places a legal requirement on social landlords to offer the tenancy of the family home to the victim within 28 days of the perpetrator being evicted on grounds of domestic abuse. The amendment does not go so far as to require the tenancy to take effect from a particular date. Rather, it provides landlords with the flexibility to deal with cases such as when the perpetrator has remained in the family home prior to eviction, or when the landlord has to carry out essential repairs or legal safety checks prior to the victim moving in. That will provide further assurance to victims that they will be offered the tenancy of the home when a perpetrator is evicted on grounds of domestic abuse.

Amendment 24 relieves landlords of the duty to offer the tenancy if there are exceptional circumstances in which that is not possible or appropriate. An example of that would be if the landlord were unable to locate the victim to make the offer of the tenancy to them. We anticipate that such cases would be very rare, but we have made provision for an exemption to the duty to make the offer so that it is not absolute.

The amendment also requires landlords to have regard to any guidance that is issued by the Scottish ministers about all those matters.

I understand that the intention behind amendment 23, in the case of a joint tenancy, is to create a new tenancy on the termination of the perpetrator’s interest in the property, with a view to preventing the victim from becoming solely responsible for any rent arrears that accrued during the joint tenancy with the perpetrator. All of us recognise the good intention that is being pursued, but the approach has key deficiencies and would have adverse unintended consequences.

First, the amendment does not provide for the creation of a new tenancy; rather, it states that the tenancy would pass in law to the victim, which means that the existing tenancy would pass to the sole tenant. Even if the amendment provided for a new tenancy, the landlord would still have the ability to pursue all or any former joint tenants for rent arrears, should they wish to do so. The amendment would not prevent that.

As for unintended consequences, Rhoda Grant’s amendment 23 would not work in all cases, because it does not take into account a situation in which there might be more than two joint tenants. In such a case, the amendment would have the unintended and unfortunate consequence of transferring the whole tenancy, and not just the abuser’s interest, to the victim of the abuse.

For example, two friends could live together as joint tenants, then one of them could form a relationship with a person who became a third joint tenant. If abuse was perpetrated, amendment 23 could remove a person’s legitimate tenancy rights, as the tenancy would transfer to the victim of the abuse. The tenancy interests of the friend of the victim of abuse would then be removed. I am sure that that is not what Rhoda Grant seeks, but that would be the amendment’s unintended consequence.

To achieve the aims that Rhoda Grant seeks, I note that the primary aspects of the legislative changes that we are introducing are to ensure tenancy sustainability and to help landlords to provide on-going support to victims of domestic abuse by proactively pursuing tenancy transfers to allow a victim to remain in their family home and by providing any support and assistance that is required, which includes managing rent arrears. As part of that, landlords will need to follow existing pre-action requirements, which the Government intends to amend to make it a legal duty to take into account the effect that domestic abuse has on the accrual of rent arrears.

For all those reasons, I cannot support amendment 23 and I urge Rhoda Grant to withdraw it. If she does not withdraw it, I urge members to reject it. I support amendment 24 and invite members to do so, too.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Amendments 23 and 24 would work together to provide a range of options for victims. It is important for a tenancy to continue when a victim desires that, because it gives them security, especially in financial matters, to show that they have lived at an address for a length of time.

The two options would allow for the situations that the cabinet secretary talked about and would work well jointly.

Amendment 23 would remove the perpetrator’s interest and transfer it to the victim without forming a new tenancy. That is important.

I intend to press amendments 23 and 24. Together, they would provide a safety net. Regardless of the situation, they would provide the victim with options that they could work through with their landlord.

The Presiding Officer

The question is, that amendment 23 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members

No.

The Presiding Officer

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the afternoon, we will have a five-minute suspension to call members to the chamber and allow members to access the voting app.

16:44 Meeting suspended.

16:51 On resuming—

We will go straight to the vote on amendment 23, in the name of Rhoda Grant. Members may cast their votes now.

The vote is now closed. Members should please let me know if they were not able to vote.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My screen, which I have just refreshed, did not show a vote. I would have voted no.

The Presiding Officer

Thank you, Mr Simpson. I will make sure that that vote is recorded.

The Presiding Officer

The result of the division is: For 24, Against 95, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 23 disagreed to.

Amendment 24 moved—[Rhoda Grant]—and agreed to.

That ends consideration of amendments.

As members may know, at this stage in proceedings, I am required under standing orders to decide whether in my view any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. The Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Bill does not do so and therefore does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.

We will have a five-minute suspension before we move on to the debate on the bill.

16:54 Meeting suspended.

17:06 On resuming—

Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Bill

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S5M-24381, in the name of Ash Denham, on the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Bill.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

As is customary, I open the debate by thanking all those who worked hard to get us to this place and to get the bill into shape for stage 3. First, I thank my own bill team, who have not had their challenges to seek in having to deal with legislation in a very truncated timetable. They have worked extraordinarily hard with members across the chamber on the amendments lodged at stage 3. I also thank the members of the Justice Committee, and its clerks, for their scrutiny and diligence and, again, for working constructively with the Government on a number of amendments at stage 3.

I thank, too, those who, crucially, took the time to share their knowledge and experiences during the scrutiny process. Scottish Women’s Aid has already been referenced. However, I know that many other organisations, such as the advocacy, support, safety, information services together—ASSIST—service, survivors and victims, who are predominantly women, have come forward to speak about their experiences of domestic abuse. I am sure that I speak for all members when I say that we applaud their bravery.

These are not normal times, and the pressures that many of us have faced as a result of the coronavirus pandemic have meant that we have struggled to dedicate time to help the Parliament to develop new laws, because there have been other competing priorities. I really thank members for the time that they have given to this bill, because it is absolutely crucial. In a week in which the Parliament has already united to incorporate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into domestic law, here is another opportunity for us to unite around transformational legislation.

Of course, the pandemic has meant that we have all been spending more time in our homes, which for many people will have been welcome. I have certainly enjoyed the time that I have spent at home with my family. However, sadly, we know that that is not true for everyone. The scourge of domestic abuse remains a blight on Scotland. Earlier in this parliamentary session, in taking evidence on what is now the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, we heard harrowing examples of the kinds of behaviour in which perpetrators of domestic abuse might engage. We now understand better the totality of what it is like to experience such abuse. Of course it can be physical—we have known that for a long time—but it can also consist of behaviour that is intended to humiliate or denigrate a partner or to exert control over every aspect of that individual’s life. It is corrosive, coercive and controlling behaviour.

Although the new domestic abuse offence has improved the criminal justice system’s ability to take action against perpetrators of such abuse, we know that we cannot rely solely on that system to deal with it. Inevitably, there are cases in which there will not be the evidence that is required to proceed with a criminal prosecution and so unlock the powers of the criminal court to protect those who are at risk.

When someone is being abused by a partner or an ex-partner with whom they live and it is not possible for criminal action to be taken against their abuser, they may lack the freedom to pursue, for example, civil court action, and they can find that they have very few options. We know that domestic abuse is the leading cause of homelessness for women, and it is easy to see why that is the case. I suspect that I am not the only member of the Scottish Parliament who has had to deal with such cases on a far-too-regular basis.

If the bill is passed by Parliament today, it will provide new powers that can be used to protect people, predominantly women.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The cabinet secretary talked about the statistics and homelessness. Earlier, I looked at the Scottish Government’s forthcoming publications. I might be missing something, but I did not see the usual publication of the Scottish Government’s domestic abuse statistics. Last year, they were published on 25 February. Will they be published and, if so, when?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

If the member will forgive me, I will take a look at that and get back to him before the end of the session.

The powers that are provided in the bill are significant. Part 1 of the bill creates new powers for the police and the courts to make a domestic abuse protection notice or a domestic abuse protection order. They can remove a suspected—that is an important word—perpetrator of domestic abuse from the home of the person who is at risk, and prohibit them from approaching or contacting the person who is at risk or any children involved. That provides the police and the courts with the powers to take action to remove a suspected perpetrator of abuse from a home that they share with a person who is at risk for a period of up to three months. That is intended to protect people who are living with an abusive partner or ex-partner, and gives them a breathing space within which they can consider the steps that they can take in the longer term to address their safety and their housing situation without any interference from their abuser.

Part 2 makes provision to allow social landlords to transfer a tenancy to a victim of domestic abuse. As it stands, there are a number of grounds on which a landlord can evict a tenant and reassign the tenancy to another person, but domestic abuse is not one of them. A new ground on which a social landlord can apply for a court order to end the tenancy of the perpetrator is being created. That will allow the victim to remain in the family home as sole tenant. Having the legal ability to end a perpetrator’s tenancy in domestic abuse cases will allow social landlords, without requiring the victim to commence the process themselves, to take a more proactive role in supporting and protecting victims of domestic abuse, and to support the victim to remain permanently in the family home.

The bill has been subject to effective scrutiny through a timetable that has meant that the bill has moved quickly from stage 1 just two months ago in January to today’s stage 3 proceedings and debate. That has been challenging, and I thank the Justice Committee for its excellent work in proceeding with scrutiny, alongside the many other demands that have been placed upon it.

The bill provides us with a legislative framework to implement a scheme of protective orders for people who are at risk of domestic abuse. However, I am all too aware that, if the scheme is to be effective in improving the lives of those people who are experiencing domestic abuse, how it is implemented will be vitally important. Indeed, a number of the concerns that were raised during parliamentary scrutiny of the bill relate not to the exact wording of the provision but to how it will be implemented in practice. As I said during the stage 1 debate, there will be a Scottish Government-led implementation board that will bring together all the key interests and stakeholders and partners, including Police Scotland, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, Scottish Women’s Aid and others to work together to put in place the necessary processes to ensure that protection can effectively be given to those who are at risk of domestic abuse.

We know that legislation alone cannot address the issue of domestic abuse. However, ensuring that appropriate powers are available through the legislation is key. Once it is implemented, the bill will provide our police, courts and social landlords with significant new powers to deal with domestic abuse. Use of those powers will reduce the risk that the only way that a person can escape from an abusive partner is to flee their own home, often having to take the children with them or, even worse, to leave their children behind, then having to rely on emergency homelessness provision. That cannot be right.

We collectively have a duty to ensure that our law and our law enforcement agencies have the tools to prevent victims from being faced with such an impossible and devastating choice simply for their own safety. We have a duty to ensure that our law can keep people safe in their own homes, and I believe that the bill provides our law enforcement agencies with those tools and allows us to fulfil that collective duty.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Domestic Abuse (Protection) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I confirm that the Scottish Conservatives will vote in favour of the Domestic Abuse Protection (Scotland) Bill at decision time tonight. We share the chamber’s condemnation of domestic abuse as a scourge—to use the cabinet secretary’s correct word—on our society and welcome any attempt to address it and get justice for victims.

The context in which we are considering the bill is sobering. Recorded incidents of domestic abuse in Scotland have risen over the past three years. Indeed, the number of domestic abuse charges was at a four-year high in 2019-20. The committee heard evidence that Police Scotland is called out to around 60,000 incidents of domestic abuse every year. That is an average of 5,000 a month—1,200 every week.

Each incident that Police Scotland attends consumes, on average, nine hours of police time, and the social costs are massive, to say nothing of the horrific impact on the victims. That is terrifying, and I have no doubt that we are united in our wish to address it. The bill has three basic ways to do so.

First, to protect a person who is at risk of domestic abuse in the immediate term, it gives the power to a senior police officer, on reasonable suspicion, to issue a domestic abuse protection notice on a person who is engaged in abusive behaviour. Breach of such a notice is a criminal offence, and it forces the person to leave the home and stay away.

Secondly, the bill sets out provisions for the domestic abuse protection order. Whenever a DAPN is issued, the police must apply to the court for a DAPO on

“the first court day after the notice is”

issued, and any order can last up to two months, which period is extendable to three months. Breach is a criminal offence. I recall that I proposed an amendment to the bill that ultimately became the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 that called for something similar, so I am pleased that that provision is present.

Thirdly, the bill gives social landlords a new power to evict a tenant when the tenant has engaged in abusive behaviour.

It is a good bill in its principles, and it was further improved, as the cabinet secretary rightly said, at stage 2. For example, at stage 2, I flagged up Police Scotland’s representations that other statutory and third-party agencies should be able to apply for a DAPO. The police had pointed out that

“reliance on a single organisation, such as Police Scotland, to apply the legislation, not only creates a significant and potentially unmanageable demand on a single service, but is out of step with the established partnership approach in Scotland.”

I am pleased that Parliament agreed to my amendment 20 today, which gives effect to that.

However, I made the point at stage 2 that it will ultimately be the practicalities that need to be addressed, because legal bodies and the police, in particular, had signalled outstanding issues that might mean that the bill’s powers could prove to be difficult to use in practice. As Detective Chief Superintendent McCluskey said, even at the moment, situations can be

“very challenging for officers on the ground.”—[

Official Report, Justice Committee

, 22 December 2020; c 29.]

The Law Society flagged up that DAPNs will be imposed by Police Scotland but noted that exactly what will amount to a sufficiency of evidence and the quality of that evidence in relation to abusive behaviour might not be consistent. If there is ambiguity, there is a risk of variations in the use of the bill’s provisions, depending on the operational decisions taken day by day and case by case by Police Scotland. The Law Society argued that that leads to a risk that there could be inconsistent practices across Scotland, as well as a lack of certainty.

All of that feeds into resource concerns. Scottish Women’s Aid makes that point forcefully and well in its briefing for the debate, saying that the police must

“be adequately resourced to be able to respond appropriately”

when assessing and imposing DAPNs or dealing with DAPOs and on enforcement. That will require training, which requires money and time. As Scottish Women’s Aid makes clear, that education and training will be required not only for the police but for everyone who is involved, such as the judiciary, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and specialist independent advocacy.

In his opening remarks, the cabinet secretary referred to the post-bill implementation group, which is being set up to bring together all the key agencies that will be affected by the new legislation, including Police Scotland. That is welcome, but it will not be straightforward. The group will, of course, be assisted by the report that is required by my amendment 22, which will allow for scrutiny and evaluation. It will help to measure exactly what use is being made of the measures and where. In line with Scottish Women’s Aid’s recommendations, the group will broaden its focus beyond criminal justice outcomes to collect a much wider range of data on those protected and their children.

Every effort possible must be made to prevent domestic abuse, and the bill is another attempt to address this vile problem in society. It seeks to provide victims of domestic abuse with the protection that they need, and we are absolutely supportive of that. I would remark very gently that, looking at things holistically, I am concerned that the presumption against short-term sentences would mean that those who breached a DAPN or a DAPO would be unlikely to go to prison. That has been highlighted to me as a potential weak point by victims of domestic abuse, so I would be grateful if the cabinet secretary addressed that concern in his closing remarks.

The Scottish Conservatives will always stand up for the victims of crime, which is why we will be very pleased to support the bill tonight.