Chamber and committees

What discussions took place during the development of the framework? What were the key areas of debate? Were there any notable areas of disagreement?

I have a couple of questions. I will ask them both at once and you might want to answer them together. How important is a place-based approach that involves having facilities side by side in order to help facilitate families accessing services? I know that, in North Lanarkshire, there is a single multidisciplinary team approach, whereby there are shared budgets and shared decision making. Is that something that the Scottish Government is looking at? Do you have any comments on that?

It is good to see you both here this morning. My question goes back a wee bit. We have mentioned ACEs, which are, sadly, often passed down from generation to generation—the trauma repeats itself. The minister mentioned the excellent work that has been happening around perinatal mental health, and my question builds on that. We all know the phrase “happy mum, happy baby”, but it goes beyond that to “happy mums, happy parents, happy children”. Parents’ emotional health affects hugely how children feel when they are growing up.

I spoke to Des Murray, the chief executive of North Lanarkshire Council, yesterday and he talked about reaching out to young mums when they drop their children off at nursery so that, instead of going home and being isolated, they become engaged with services, whether that involves their having a coffee, accessing advice services, doing a bit of physical activity or whatever. What are we doing to promote that type of good practice, which recognises how important parental wellbeing is in enabling our young children to flourish?

My question is not about physical activity. If you want to bring in the others first, I will maybe come in at the end.

Public Health Scotland’s latest data indicates that the pandemic has resulted in a 60 per cent decrease in the number of people visiting NHS dentists. Although there is cause for optimism, the number of Covid cases remains high, and we need a cautious approach to the full resumption of dental services. Will the First Minister outline what engagement the Scottish Government has had with the sector to prepare for the safe remobilisation of dental services?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not able to vote. I would have voted yes.

I add my thanks to my colleague George Adam for securing this important Scottish Government debate.

Despite the stark divide between my politics and those of the Conservative Party, I have always thought that we share a universal bond when it comes to upholding the fundamental right to vote. However, with the passage of the UK Elections Bill through the House of Commons, even that last bastion of consensus has been irrevocably undermined.

Across the world, throughout the modern age, people have fought, and even died, for the right to vote. As a young student in Hamilton, I door knocked on local streets to persuade people to register to vote. I am truly saddened by the attempt to reverse many years of hard-fought democratic progress. Such progress was demonstrated here in Scotland when we extended the election franchise to 16 and 17-years-olds and to refugees. The UK Elections BiIl undermines Scotland’s progress of democracy by seeking to suppress votes and reduce the franchise to address a problem that, as many others have said, does not really exist.

As other members have pointed out, in 2019, there was only one conviction and one caution relating to proven voter fraud, but the bill risks disenfranchising millions of voters, including people with disabilities and those from ethnic minority backgrounds, as well as younger and older voters. It is nothing short of disgusting.

Many such points have been repeated, but they are very important, such as Age UK stating that 500,000 older citizens would not vote or the fact that up to 2.1 million people are without suitable ID. It is shameful that the digitally excluded, the vulnerable and many of those who are already living on the very edges of our society should be marginalised further. Yes, some things need attention when it comes to conducting UK elections, but one of those things should not be to exclude voters.

If the Tories were truly serious about wanting to improve our voting system, why do they not look at ways to ensure that the 9 million people who are currently missing from the electoral roll in the UK are brought into the democratic process? If they wish to protect our democracy, why do they not propose banning anonymous political party donations and investigating dark money? Why not implement the findings of the 2020 Russia report?

It is noted in the motion, and it has been mentioned many times, that the bill would give UK ministers new powers over the work of the Electoral Commission, risking the independence of the election watchdog at a time when trust in politics is at an all-time low. That is far from okay, for all the reasons that others have mentioned.

As with others, my concerns about the bill are heightened by the wider legislative agenda that the UK Government is pursuing. Its agenda is on a collision course with a whole series of democratic freedoms, from the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the Nationality and Borders Bill to proposed reforms of the Human Rights Act 1998. It seems as though the Tories are attempting a full frontal assault on our democracy while we are distracted by the hypocrisy and lies that are coming from all the partying in Downing Street. However, that is not going unnoticed.

The UK Elections Bill is horrific. It is a serious attack on our democratic traditions. I fully support the Scottish Government’s motion and the Labour amendment. It saddens me that any member in this chamber should wish the Scottish Parliament to consent to such flawed legislation. The constituents we represent, particularly those who are directly impacted by the discredited Elections Bill, are counting on us to protect their voting rights and they are counting on us to resist this retrograde legislation. We in this chamber should not let them down.

Will Donald Cameron give way?

But is there no overarching, national, multi-agency approach? Is that missing? I am sorry if I was not making myself clear.

Is there nothing overarching that at a national level? Is such a thing needed?