Chamber and committees

At present, is your office sufficiently resourced to do the run-and-maintain work that is required? A very serious and alarming picture was painted in the annual report. How do you feel right now?

So you are not confident. I am conscious of resourcing. You have cases coming in by the day, you have a backlog and you have a small team. You say that you are not sure how you can manage what you have plus everything that is coming. Basically, you need additional support.

Thank you—

The UK Government’s Professional Qualifications Bill aims to create a new legislative framework for recognising professional qualifications that are gained outside the UK. That framework will replace existing EU-derived law in the area. Given that more than 200 professions are regulated by law in the UK, that is a significant undertaking. Feedback from regulators such as the Law Society of Scotland suggests that the law has been improved during its passage in the UK Parliament, and that constructive engagement has taken place with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy during the amending stage, when proposed changes were rigorously debated.

The Scottish Government’s supplementary legislative consent memorandum rightly emphasises that many aspects of the bill are not contentious; during the bill’s second reading, the SNP chief whip in Westminster stated that

“the Scottish National Party is not against the principles of the bill”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 15 December 2021; Vol 705, c 112.]

It is clearly not the policy intention of the bill that the Scottish Government opposes, but the process through which its provisions are implemented, and the reason why the legislation is required in the first place. I will address those points in turn.

On the issue of process, it is important to acknowledge at the outset that the Sewel convention was engaged and that the UK Government has been negotiating extensively with the devolved Administrations to find consensus on areas of divergence. That point was specifically made by Ivan McKee in his evidence to the Economy and Fair Work Committee on 29 September 2021, when he highlighted that there is

“on-going engagement at official level”

and that the minister had been in contact with

“Gerry Grimstone, the relevant UK Government minister.”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 29 September 2021; c 31.]

That point was also made in Ivan McKee’s letter of 23 November to the committee, which referred to “continuing discussion with BEIS”.

The main point of contention for the Scottish Government is outlined in paragraph 20 of the supplementary legislative consent memorandum—namely, concerns about exercising of concurrent powers and the definition of “appropriate national authority”, and issues related to consent. On concurrent powers, the approach that has been taken by the UK Government is to ensure that professions that fall within devolved legislative competence, but are regulated on a UK-wide basis, can be dealt with effectively and appropriately under the bill by the relevant and appropriate national authority.

To address the concerns of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the UK Government suggested putting a duty to consult in the bill. That duty would require the relevant secretary of state or the Lord Chancellor to consult the devolved Administrations before making, under the legislation, regulations that fall within devolved competence, and to publish a report on the consultation. Therefore, there has been significant movement by the UK Government, which would preserve the balance of the devolution settlement while maintaining a coherent approach across the UK.

No.

The proposal would also mitigate some of the concerns that have been raised by the Economy and Fair Work Committee and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Given the SNP’s concern that the bill impinges on devolved competence, it is worth pointing out that the Scottish Government was content with operation of the former system for recognition of qualifications under EU law, in which the UK made decisions, as the member state.

I now turn to the reason why the legislation is required—the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The SNP seems to agree with the principles of the bill, yet it expresses opposition, at least in part, because of Brexit. MSPs have made the argument on that many times in the chamber, but it bears repeating that the UK, which Scotland voted to remain part of in 2014, voted to leave the EU two years later. That outcome was a source of sadness and regret for many people, but they have, nevertheless, accepted it as a democratic process.

I will make two final points, the first of which is technical. The Scottish Government’s motion refers to the Economy and Fair Work Committee’s report that was published on 22 November 2021. Paragraph 58 of that report concluded:

“the Committee is not currently in a position to take a view on this LCM”.

The minister talked about lack of respect and said that scrutiny is important. I am glad that he said that, because the committee’s report on the supplementary legislative consent memorandum, which was published yesterday, raised concerns about the amount of time the Scottish Government took to lodge the supplementary LCM, which was more than two months overdue. Along with the Scottish Government’s timetabling of today’s debate, the committee felt that those factors limited its ability to conduct detailed scrutiny. The minister might look at me.

We believe that the bill will provide stability for qualifications and prevent divergence in professional qualifications regulations in the UK. We note the extensive engagement to date between the UK Government and the Scottish Government regarding the bill’s provisions, and we note that the Scottish Government is supportive of the general principles of the bill. Overall, we are in favour of consenting to the bill and will vote against the motion at decision time.

I welcome the minister’s comments that the Scottish Government intends to consult women and women’s groups on public transport. However, with reports of harassment on transport increasing compared with pre-pandemic levels, can the minister advise how many people have been charged and prosecuted over the past year, and can she say what immediate measures the Scottish Government is putting in place to protect women’s safety on public transport?

It is an honour today to celebrate the 70-year reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who is the longest reigning monarch in our history. I pay tribute to my colleague Stephen Kerr for securing the time for this debate.

We all know the history of our Queen and her love for Scotland. She is descended from the royal house of Stewart on both sides of her family. She has spent many summers at Balmoral castle in Royal Deeside, Aberdeenshire, in my region.

So many of us, our parents and our grandparents have family memories of events over the past 70 years. I remember the silver anniversary in 1977, when I was a little girl, and, more recently, the diamond jubilee in 2012. Those were times of national celebration and affection.

From as far back as the second world war, the Queen has been the country’s constant servant, and she remains unrelentingly dedicated to her work, even at the age of 95. Since she came to the throne, the Queen has sent almost 300,000 100^th birthday messages, and close to 900,000 diamond wedding anniversary cards. Today, I want to share a personal history of two photographs and two certificates hanging on the wall in my home. For my family, like so many others, they represent how Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family are so often interwoven in our stories and histories.

The two certificates proudly hanging in our hallway speak of hard work, learning and service to others. One of the certificates is the Duke of Edinburgh’s gold award, presented by the Queen’s consort, who stood by her side for most of the 70 years of her reign. The other certificate is the Girls Brigade Queen’s award. One was presented at the Palace of Holyrood by Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth, and the other was presented by Queen Elizabeth in Dundee. Those were both special life events for my wife and her family—as such events are for so many young people in the Girls Brigade, Boys Brigade, guides and scouts.

There are two photographs in the entrance hall. Ishbel, a florist all her life, regularly made the arrangements for launch days of ships on the Clyde from where she worked on Buchanan street. In 1959, one of Ishbel’s arrangements became the Queen Mother’s Christmas card that year. That picture proudly hangs in our home.

The other photograph is of my wife’s parents, Ishbel and George—who are watching this debate—celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary in 2018. They were personally presented by the Provost Ian McAllan and the lord-lieutenant of Lanarkshire, Lady Susan Haughey, with a diamond wedding anniversary card from Her Majesty the Queen. That day was a celebration of their life together, and one made memorable by the Queen and her representatives.

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge lords-lieutenant, who work in a voluntary capacity to represent the Queen in communities across the UK. Last week I was delighted to meet the lord-lieutenant of Kincardineshire, Alastair Macphie, and to learn about his role.

George and Ishbel, now in their late 80s, are so fond of these pictures. They made sure that they had pride of place when they came to live with us when Covid-19 hit. The pictures give them daily joy.

It is not just Her Majesty the Queen’s life and reign we celebrate today, but those personal family ties and celebrated moments that bring us all together as one nation, and one family.

The Coronavirus (Recovery and Reform) (Scotland) Bill includes permanent powers to close schools and businesses, enforce lockdowns and release prisoners early. Although we must account for the possibility of future variants, we cannot accept legally enforced restrictions as the new normal. Why does the First Minister not scrap this Orwellian bill?

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Fire Brigades Union on its plans to remove the bottom of classroom doors. (S6T-00499)

The cabinet secretary said, “a wilful misunderstanding”? In recent days, we have had two significant interventions on, or “misunderstandings” of, the plan. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service said that it would strongly advise those who are responsible for making the changes—I am talking about the “misunderstandings”—to contact its fire safety enforcement teams before doing so. Given that, can the cabinet secretary say whether those proposals are definitely “misunderstandings”?